Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in prosecution evidence--- Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Occurrence had taken place on 16.07.2017 at 12.45 pm and complainant reported the incident to the police through an oral statement at 03.10 pm in emergency ward of the hospital, which sent the same to the police station through a Constable for formal registration of FIR---First Information Report was chalked out at 03.25 pm on 16.07.2017---Case of prosecution was that the injured was shifted to hospital by the complainant, his brother and the people of the locality---On perusal of Medico-Legal Certificate, it was revealed that injured was accompanied by his brother-in-law---From the testimony of the complainant, it was revealed that before recording statement of the witness, SI examined the body of the deceased, examined the injuries received by the deceased and then recorded the statement of the complainant---Admitted fact that before recording the statement of the complainant, the partial investigation was conducted by SI---Medical Officer deposed that on 16.09.2017, patient was brought by his brother-in-law to emergency department at about 01.12 pm and she conducted Medico-Legal Certificate at about 01.15 pm---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 21 hours in conducting the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Duration between the death of the deceased and the postmortem examination contradicted the prosecution's case---Per the prosecution's version, the occurrence occurred at 12:45 p.m. on 16.07.2017---As per the prosecution's case, deceased took his last breath at 2:45 p.m. on 16.09.2017 and the matter was reported to police at 03.00 p.m. on 16.07.2017---Dead body was shifted to the hospital for a postmortem examination and postmortem examination was conducted at 11:45 a.m. on 17.09.2017, i.e., 21 hours after the occurrence---Whereas the Medical Officer who had conducted the postmortem examination opined that the duration between death and postmortem examination was 21 hours, which fact vitiated the prosecution case set forth by the ocular account---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068 and Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2020 SCMR 192 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the complainant and eye-witness at the spot not proved---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---In the inquest report, which was prepared on 16-09-2017, Investigating Officer mentioned the names of the persons who identified the dead body of deceased--- Names of said witnesses had also been mentioned in the last column of the inquest report---Such fact outrightly suggested that the complainant and the eye-witness were not present when the inquest report in this case was prepared---At the time of occurrence, the positions stated by the witnesses conflicted---Thus, they were chance witnesses, as by coincidence or chance, they were present at the place of occurrence when the incident was taking place---Said witnesses could not normally be where and when they professed to have been---Prosecution witnesses had not deposed the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence---Admittedly, they were not residents of the locality where the incident occurred---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of recovered weapon of offence, bullet and magazine not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Record showed that pistol .30-bore, five live bullets and magazine, were recovered on the disclosure of the accused/appellant with positive report of Forensic Science Agency---However the Court had noticed with concern that the safe custody of the parcel of crime empties along with two lead bullets, pistol .30-bore, five live bullets and magazine had not been proved from the prosecution evidence---As per the prosecution case, on 16.09.2017 the Investigating Officer secured five crime empties along with two lead bullets from the place of occurrence and handed them over to Head Constable/Moharrar Malkahana---On 21.09.2017, Head Constable/ Moharrar Malkhana handed over a parcel of crime empties to the Investigating Officer for its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---After that, the appellant was arrested on 21.11.2017, and during the investigation, he recovered a pistol, .30-bore, five live bullets, and a magazine from his house on 03.12.2017---Per the case of prosecution, the Investigating Officer handed over the recovered pistol .30-bore, five live bullets and a magazine to the Moharar of other Police Station for safe custody---However, Moharar Malkhana of said Police Station had not been produced by the prosecution as a witness rather Moharar of concerned Police Station while appearing as witness deposed that on 03.12.2017, Investigating Officer handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain a pistol and it was received back from him on 07.12.2017 for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, which was contrary to the deposition made by the Investigating Officer---Prosecution failed to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged parcel of pistol .30-bore, five live bullets and a magazine recovered from the possession of the appellant was kept in safe custody---Such contradictions did lead to an irresistible inference that the prosecution had not been able to prove safe custody of the recovered pistol .30-bore, five live bullets and magazine through material and cogent evidence---In such circumstances, the recovery of the weapon of offence and a positive report was of no consequence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Property dispute was alleged to be motive behind the occurrence---In the instant case, enmity between the two parties, i.e., the deceased and accused, was not disputed before the High Court---Enmity is a double edged weapon---Existence of a civil dispute was not proved; instead, the complainant had reason for involving the appellant for committing the crime, yet the Court had to be cognizant of the fact that this might, in a given case, lead to the false implication of the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Absconsion---Corroborative evidence---Factum of remaining a fugitive from law for a considerable period, even if established, can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive---Mere absconsion is not proof of guilt of an accused. Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad and another 1995 SCMR 1373 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Record showed that co-accused of the appellant had been acquitted by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence---Although, acquittal of co-accused was challenged, however, said appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution---Major part of evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved qua the said co-accused---So no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses for conviction of the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Rai Usman Ahmad for Appellant. Ms. Maida Sobia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Abid Hussain Saqi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J .--- Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey son of Muhammad Tariq Javed, Caste Jutt, resident of House No.2, Bazar-4, Guroo Arjan Nagar Gowalmandi, District Lahore (presently resident of Arif Chowk Tokawali Gali Iqbal Town, Police Station Millat Park, Lahore), the appellant was involved in case FIR. No.526-2017, dated 16.09.2017, registered under Sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C, at the Police Station, Gowalmandi, District Lahore, and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (M.C.T.C), Lahore. The learned trial court seized the matter in terms of the judgment dated 28.02.2020 and convicted the appellant under section 302(B) P.P.C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as Tazir with the direction to pay Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The compensation amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and in case of default in payment, the appellant would undergo six months S.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favor of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey, the appellant, has assailed his conviction by filing Crl. Appeal No.15995 of 2020, the complainant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2020, filed Criminal Revision No.16254 of 2020 for enhancement of the sentence of respondent No.1. As both the matters are arising out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution story, as alleged in the FIR (Ex. PB) lodged on the complaint (Ex. PA) of Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant, is that on 16.09.2017, at about 12:45 p.m., the complainant (PW-1) was in the company of his maternal uncle, Mehmood Ali (since dead) and Mehmood Ali (since dead) along with his friends, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2) and Ali Raza (PW-3) was sitting near the shop of Rana Iftikhar and Mahmood Ali (since dead) was preparing for "Zohar" prayer. Meanwhile, the accused, Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey, and his co-accused, Sultan alias Jajja, equipped with their respective pistols, came by a motorcycle bearing registration No. LER-39 and raised lalkara that they would not spare Mehmood Ali (since dead), whereupon the accused, Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey, made fire shots, which hit the chest and abdomen of Mehmood Ali (since dead). The co-accused, Sultan alias Jajja, also fired shots, which landed on the left shoulder, back, and other body parts of Mehmood Ali (since dead), who fell, whereas both the accused persons decamped from the place of occurrence while extending threats and firing. The complainant (PW-1) along with Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2) and other people of vicinity, shifted Mehmood Ali (since dead) to the hospital in injured condition, who succumbed to the injuries. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2) and Ali Raza Gujjar (PW-3). 4. The motive behind the occurrence was a property dispute between Mehmood Ali (since dead) and the accused persons, and the occurrence was committed on the instigation of Irfan alias Iffi Jutt, who wanted to get possession over the property of Mehmood Ali (since dead). Hence, this case. 5. After registration of FIR, Aurangzeb, S.I. (PW-15), carried out the investigation, submitted a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction while placing the name of the accused persons in Column No.3 of the challan. On 17.09.2018, the trial court formally charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as fifteen (15) witnesses. 6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein he refused to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, in his defence, the appellant produced a copy of FIR No.243/2012, offence under Section 342, P.P.C. In response to a particular question of why this case was against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition: - "A false case has been concocted against me due to the mala fide intention of the complainant party, as the complainant party is inimical towards me that's why I have been falsely involved in this case. Due to this reason, prosecution has bitterly failed to prove the charge against me. All the witnesses produced by the prosecution are chance witnesses and they could not establish their presence at the time of occurrence. Moreover, there are number of contradictions in the statements of witnesses inter-se and the prosecution case is full of doubts and even the prosecution has maneuvered this false case against me and it is established during the evidence that there is gross conflict between ocular and medical, there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the prosecution case is not corroborated with any independent piece of evidence and whole prosecution case full with doubts. Even the motive set up by the prosecution is not directly concerned with me as I was not in conflict with the deceased with regard to the dispute over the property. I have also been involved in this case due to the reason that I had registered a case/FIR No.243/12 under section 324, P.P.C registered with police station, Gawalmandi and in the said case Mehmood Ali remained jail for 3 and half/04-years. Due to this grudge in the mind of the complainant party, I have been falsely involved in this case. Moreover, it was in the mind of the complainant party that I was pursuing the different matters of Sultan, co-accused (since P.O), who was the relative of the complainant party that's why I have been falsely involved in this case. Basically, the occurrence was committed by unknown persons due to the reason that deceased had enmity with number of persons and the inhabitants/natives of the locality were not supporting the version of the complainant that's why no person from locality was produced before the I.O and even before the court. I have been maliciously involved in this case." 7. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction in the afore-stated terms. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 9. As per the prosecution's case, the occurrence had taken place on 16.07.2017 at 12:45 p.m. near the shop of Rana Iftikhar alias Bao situated in Gowalmandi Lahore, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station Gowalmandi, Lahore, which is at a distance of 1/2 kilometer only from the place of occurrence. After the occurrence, Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant along with his brother and people of the locality shifted Mehmood Ali (then injured), the maternal uncle of Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant, to Mayo Hospital boarding him on rickshaw and got admitted him in Mayo Hospital for saving his life, where medical treatment was provided to Mehmood Ali, who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-complainant mentioned in oral statement (Ex. PA) that his maternal uncle Mehmood Ali was injured in the firing and fell on the ground drenched in blood. The accused fled on a motorcycle while threatening and firing and took his uncle's licensed pistol. According to Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant, he, along with his brother (not named) and other residents of the neighborhood, had put his uncle in a rickshaw and admitted him to Mayo Hospital, where he (PW-1) was busy treating his uncle Mahmood Ali, who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant reported the incident to Syed Waqar Ali S.I. (PW-6) through oral statement (Ex.PA) at 03:10 p.m. in Emergency Ward of Mayo Hospital, who sent the same to police station through Maqbool Ahmad/C (not cited as witness) for formal registration of FIR and formal FIR (Ex. PB) was chalked out at 03:25 p.m. on 16.07.2017 by Muhammad Ijaz S.I. (PW-5). Notably, the death certificate of Mayo Hospital, Lahore (Ex.PG) reveals that Mehmood Ali, then injured, was admitted in the Emergency Ward at 01:12 p.m. He took his last breath at 02:45 p.m., and the matter was reported to the police at 03:10 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution that Mehmood Ali was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, by Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant, his brother (not named in the oral statement (Ex.PA) and FIR (Ex. PB)), and the people of the locality. Whereas, on perusal of MLC (Ex.PK), it reveals that Mehmood Ali (then injured) was accompanied by Irshad Ali (brother-in-law) of Mehmood Ali (then injured). Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during his examination-in-chief that: - "Me, my brother and Ghulam Murtaza along with people of the locality shifted my uncle Mahmood Ali to hospital but my uncle Mahmood Ali succumbed to the injuries despite receiving treatment." Contrary to the deposition of Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2), the eye-witness, deposed during his examination in chief that: - "Hamza Irshad, his brother Noman Irshad and people of the neighbourhood shifted the injured on rickshaw to Mayo hospital. Ali Raza and I also went with them on our motorcycle. Injured Mahmood was shifted to operation theater and we remained outside the theater and came to know at about 03:00 pm that Mahmood has passed away. After sometime, Investigating Officer came there and recorded our statement." While Ali Raza (PW-3) deposed during his examination-in-chief that: - "Hamza Irshad, Ghulam Murtaza, Noman Irshad and I shifted the deceased to the hospital on rickshaw who died in the hospital at 03:00 pm." The defence has also brought on the record improvements in the statements made by Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2), and Ali Raza (PW-3), the eye-witnesses in their statements recorded before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "I got mentioned in my complaint Ex.PA that I along with Ghulam Murtaza and other people of locality shifted the dead body of deceased to the hospital. Confronted with Ex.PA, where the name of Ghulam Murtaza is not mentioned." Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "I got recorded in my statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that I along with Ali Raza proceeded to Hospital on motorbike. Confronted with Ex.DA wherein it is not recorded. I got recorded in my statement that deceased Mahmood Ali was taken to Operation Theater of Mayo Hospital and we kept on standing outside Operation Theater. Confronted with Ex.DA where it is not recorded. I got mentioned in my statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., that death of deceased Mahmood Ali came into my knowledge at 03:00 pm. Confronted with Ex.DA wherein it is not recorded." Ali Raza (PW-3)-the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "I got recorded in my statement before police that I along with Hamza Irshad, Ghulam Murtaza, Noman Irshad shifted the deceased to hospital in rickshaw. Confronted with Ex.DB, where it is not so recorded. I got recorded in my statement before the police that deceased Mahmood Ali died at 03:00 pm in the hospital. Confronted with Ex.DB, where it is not so recorded. I got recorded in my statement before the police that accused persons while threatening us left the place of occurrence. Confronted with Ex.DB, where words "threatening us" are not so recorded but only word "threatening" has been mentioned." It is the prosecution's case that after shifting Mahmood Ali in injured condition to Mayo Hospital, medical treatment was provided to the injured, who succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported to the police upon arrival. From the testimony of Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant, it reveals that before recording statement of the witness, Syed Waqar Ali Shah S.I. (PW-6), examined the body of Mehmood Ali, the deceased, examined the injuries received by the deceased and then recorded the statement of Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant. Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "My brother Noman brought rickshaw at place of occurrence within 05-minutes from time of occurrence. It is correct that rickshaw driver has not been produced during investigation. It is further correct that said rickshaw was also not produced during the investigation. Noman has not been cited as a witness of the occurrence. Only four persons from the locality went to the hospital. Those four persons have not been made witnesses of the present occurrence. Volunteered that they were not present at the time of occurrence. Shop of Rana Iftikhar is at two km distance from Mayo Hospital. ----------------- On way to hospital from shop of Rana Iftikhar, Police Station falls, however, we took other passage. It is incorrect to suggest that I have made dishonest improvement with regard to usage of other passage. Police check-post exists within the Mayo Hospital boundary. Officials from said police check-post approached us after some time. Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI approached us. Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI examined the injuries received by Mahmood Ali. Police officials from police check-post reached to us after 30-minutes of our arrival whereas Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI came from Police Station. -------------------Statement of my father was recorded by Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI. Statement of my father was recorded earlier to my statement. It is not in my knowledge that how much prior to my statement, statement of my father was recorded. When my statement was recorded by Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI, only two police officials were present over there. Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI examined the whole body of the deceased before recording my statement. It is not in my knowledge that apart from the statement of my father, whether any police official recorded or not any other statement of any other person in this case. Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI stayed at hospital for about 30-minutes. --------------- I was not present when Syed Waqar Ali Shah SI examined the dead body of deceased Mahmood Ali. ------------ My brother Noman reached at place of occurrence after 5-minutes to the time of occurrence whereas my father Irshad Mahmood directly reached to Mayo Hospital from Mian Munshi Hospital at about 01:20 pm." Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that:- "Nouman (brother of complainant Hamza) brought rickshaw. Again said that rickshaw was passing through the street and came over within no time. We reached to the Hospital at about 01:00 pm. Police reached at Hospital at about 03:00 pm. No police official reached at the Hospital before 03:00 pm. Police officials asked about the occurrence from complainant Hamza." It is an admitted fact that before recording the statement of the complainant, the partial investigation was conducted by Syed Waqar Ali, S.I. (PW-6). Syed Waqar Ali, S.I (PW-6) deposed during examination in chief that: - "Stated that on 16.09.2017, I was posted at P.S Gowal Mandi, Lahore as Chauki Incharge, Mayo Hospital Lahore. I was present in the said police posts when Constable Imran informed me that a person has suffered a firearm injury and his dead body is shifted to the emergency ward of Mayo Hospital. I went to the emergency ward where complainant Hamza met me and got his statement recorded, which I wrote down. During cross-examination, Syed Waqar Ali, S.I (PW-6) deposed as under: - "The Police Post at which I was posted is situated within premises of the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. I received the information regarding shifting of the dead body in emergency ward of the Mayo Hospital, Lahore at about 01:00 pm." Whereas Dr. Marriam Shahid (PW-10) deposed during examination-in-chief that on 16.09.2017, patient Mahmood Ali was brought by Irshad Ali (brother-in-law) to emergency department at about 01:12 pm, and she conducted MLC at about 01:15 pm on book No.29. Aurangzaib S.I (PW-15)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "I received information of the present occurrence at about 12:00 (noon) and I was present at that time in the area. I reached at hospital between 01:30 pm to 02:00 pm. ------------- complainant Hamza Irshad got recorded his statement to Waqar Ali SI in my presence. Said Waqar Ali SI was posted at Police Station Gowalmandi at that time. I started investigation proceedings in this case at about 03:15 pm. It is correct that I prepared injury statement and inquest report and handed over the dead body to the constables for post-mortem before receiving the copy of FIR. FIR of this case was chalked out at 03:25 pm on 16.09.2017. ------------------- It is correct that in inquest repot Ex.PS against column No.III, time of information of present occurrence is mentioned as 03:10 pm. ----------------------- it is correct that on 17.09.2017, given up PW Irshad got recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. It is further correct that in his statement before me, he got recorded that at the time of present occurrence, he was present on his duty at Mian Munshi Hospital and after receiving information of instant occurrence, he arrived at place of occurrence and shifted the injured Mahmood to hospital." The duration between the death of the deceased and the postmortem examination also contradicts the prosecution's case. Per the prosecution's version, the occurrence occurred at 12:45 p.m. on 16.07.2017. As per the prosecution's case, Mahmood Ali-deceased took his last breath at 2:45 p.m. on 16.09.2017 (as per the death certificate of Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Ex. PGG available at page No. 175 of the book), and the matter was reported to police at 03.00 p.m. on 16.07.2017. The dead body was shifted to the hospital for a postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was conducted at 11:45 a.m. on 17.09.2017, i.e., 21 hours after the occurrence, whereas the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination opined that the duration between death and postmortem examination was 21 hours, which fact vitiates the prosecution case set forth by the ocular account, in this regard cases of "Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State" (2019 SCMR 1068) and "Syfyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 192), can be referred. 10. There is another aspect of the case that makes the prosecution's case doubtful. In the inquest report (Ex. PS), which was prepared on 16-09-2017, Aurangzeb, S.I. (PW-15) Investigating Officer mentioned the names of the persons who identified the dead body of Mahmood Ali-deceased as Irshad Mahmood (given up PW) and Maqsood Ahmad (PW-14), brother-in-law and friend of Mahmood Ali-deceased. Their names have also been mentioned in the last column of the inquest report (Ex. PS). This out rightly suggests that Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2), and Ali Raza (PW-3), the eye-witness, were not present when the inquest report (Ex. PS) in this case was prepared. This fact further gets support from the deposition of Maqsood Ahmad (PW-14) during examination-in-chief that: - "On 17.09.2017, I along with Irshad Mahmood identified the dead body of deceased Mahmood Ali at dead house of Mayo Hospital." Maqsood Ahmad (PW-14) also deposed during cross-examination that: - "I did not visit the hospital before 17.09.2017. My statement was recorded by the I.O. at 04:00 pm at the hospital." In addition, there are discrepancies in the witnesses' statements regarding their position at the time of the incident. Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Stated that on 16.09.2017, at 12:45 pm, my maternal uncle Mahmood Ali, Ghulam Murtaza and Ali Raza were sitting in the electrics shop and my maternal uncle was preparing for Zuhar prayer." Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Stated that on 16.09.2017, I went to see Mahmood at about 11:30 am who was present in an electronic shop. The owner of electronic shop was also present when we reached there. Ali Raza also accompanied me to the electronic shop on a motorcycle. We placed the chairs outside the shop and sat there. After a short while, Hamza Irshad complainant also joined us." Ali Raza (PW-3)-the eye-witness deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Stated that on 16.09.2017, Ghulam Murtaza Dogar and I went to see Mahmood Ali deceased at his home who was sitting in an electronic shop below his house. The owner of electronic shop was also present. After short while, nephew of Mahmood Ali deceased Hamza Irshad also reached there. All of us sat outside the shop." At the time of occurrence, the positions stated by the witnesses conflicted. They were thus chance witnesses, as by coincidence or chance, they were present at the place of occurrence when the incident was taking place. They could not normally be where and when they profess to have been. Even, Aurangzeb, S.I (PW-15)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that the address of PWs Ghulam Murtaza, Ali Raza and complainant Hamza are not of the street where the occurrence took place. It is correct that the present occurrence was taken place in street No.2 Guru Arjan and no resident from said was recorded by me." Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that PWs Ghulam Murtaza and Ali Raza are not residents of Gawalmandi." The prosecution witnesses have not deposed the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence. Admittedly, they were not residents of the locality where the incident occurred. So, they are chance witnesses. Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Distance between Sadoke village to Gowalmandi is aobut 44-kms. It consumes about one hour on some vehicle. Volunteered that in those days, I was living at property office. It is incorrect to suggest that my volunteer portion is incorrect. I did not get mentioned in my statement that in the days of present occurrence, I was residing at Sadoke. Confronted with Ex.DA, where it is so recorded." Ali Raza (PW-3)-the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "Mohallah Usmanpura Chaudharian Shalimar Town, Lahore is at about distance of 12/15-kms from place of occurrence of present occurrence. Volunteered that in the days of present occurrence, I was not residing at Mohallah Usmanpura. It is incorrect to suggest that my volunteer portion is incorrect. My CNIC has the same address as mentioned Mohallah Usmanpura Chaudharian Shalimar Town, Lahore. it is correct that my present as well as permanent residence is mentioned as Mohallah Usmanpura Chaudharian Shalimar Town, Lahore in my CNIC. My CNIC was issued in the year 2013 which would expire in the year 2023. I have no document with me right this time showing any other residential address of mine instead of Mohalla Usmanpura Chaudharian Shalimar Town, Lahore." These facts indicated and gave a scent that Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness and Ali Raza (PW-3)-the eye-witness were not at all present at the scene. The testimonial assertions of the witnesses, i.e., Hamza Irshad (PW-1)-the complainant, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-2)-the eye-witness, and Ali Raza (PW-3)-the eye-witness, did not have the ring of truth. The reason they assigned (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) for their alleged presence at the spot was farfetched and fabricated. In addition, the depositions of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the deceased was a man of questionable character, having a shady past and criminal antecedent. Hamza Irshad (PW-1), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that: - "Ghulam Murtaza PW became the friend of deceased Mahmood Ali while they were in jail wherea

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 15 [as amended through Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act (XXXVIII of 2016)]---Auction proceedings---Objection raised, rejection of---Sale of mortgaged property, confirmation of---Doctrine of prospective overruling---Appeal was filed against dismissal of objection to auction and confirmation of auction sale of mortgaged property ('the auction sale in question')---Submission of the appellant was that auction sale in question was carried out in terms of originally framed S. 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') before said section was re-enacted pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. and another reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 283 ('the SAF Textile Mills Case'), which provision of law was held ultra vires in the Constitution; that auction sale the present case was not immune from the effect of the 'SAF Textile Mills' Case'---Validity---Auction sale in question was carried out under the originally framed S. 15 of the Ordinance, 2001, which was declared ultra vires vide decision of 'SAF Textile Mills Ltd.' case, in which, evidently, Supreme Court had neither invoked nor applied the doctrine of prospective overruling - protecting past and closed transactions [auctions conducted in terms of S. 15 of the Ordinance, 2001] while declaring the law unconstitutional---Even otherwise, auction conducted did not become a past and closed transaction in wake of pendency of present appeal (pending since 2013 ) , against the order of dismissal of objections and confirmation of sale---High Court set-aside the order of confirmation of auction sale in question (dated 04.09.2013), being not sustainable, declaring the same as illegal ; the appellant was at liberty to initiate proceedings seeking restitution/reversal of the actions enforced and steps taken pursuant to the order of confirmation of auction sale---Appeal was allowed accordingly. National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283 ref. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 15 [as amended through Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act (XXXVIII of 2016]---Auction proceedings---Objection raised, rejection of---Sale of mortgaged property, confirmation of---Single bid---Effect---Appeal was filed against dismissal of objection to auction and confirmation of auction sale of mortgaged property ('the auction sale in question')---Validity---Acceptance of single bid in an auction sale, without any competitive bid, is antithesis to the claim and concept of public auction(s)---High / Appellate Court set-aside the order of confirmation of auction sale in question ( dated 04.09.2013), being not sustainable, declaring the same as illegal ; the appellant was at liberty to initiate proceedings seeking restitution/reversal of the actions enforced and steps taken pursuant to the order of confirmation of auction sale---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Limited 2023 CLD 85 ref. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 15 [as amended through Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act (XXXVIII of 2016]---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018, R. 3(c) (iv)---Auction proceedings---Objection raised, rejection of---Sale of mortgaged property, confirmation of---Re-enactment of S. 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Effect---Appeal was filed against dismissal of objection to auction and confirmation of auction sale of mortgaged property ('the auction sale in question)---Whether the auction sale in question could claim protection in terms of S. 15 of the Ordinance, 2001---Held, that S. 15 of the Ordinance, 2001 was amended through Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act, 2016, which also promulgated Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018 ('the Rules, 2018')---Rule 3(c) (iv) of the Rules, 2018, permits considering single bids, subject to certain conditions---However, R.3(c) (iv) of the Rules, 2018 extends no protection to auction sale in question, as R. 3(c)(iv) of the Rules, 2018 was declared ultra vires in terms of the majority decision in the case of Muhammad Shoaib Arshad and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 4 others reported as 2020 CLD 638---High / Appellate Court set-aside the order of confirmation of auction sale in question (dated 04.09.2013), being not sustainable, declaring the same as illegal ; the appellant was at liberty to initiate proceedings seeking restitution/reversal of the actions enforced and steps taken pursuant to the order of confirmation of auction sale---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Shoaib Arshad and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs and 4 others 2020 CLD 638 ref. Abdul Hameed Baloch for Appellant. Nemo. for Respondent No.1. Ibrahim Khan, vice counsel for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025.

Summary: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.20(1)(b) & 20(5)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Fraudulent mis-representation or committing a breach of an obligation or representation made to a financial institution---Accused/customers were charged for removing 370 motorcycles which were pledged with the complainant against a loan amount, through duplicate/forged keys---Accused was acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C---Validity---In the present case, the borrower/customer was a company and a body corporate, hence subsection (5) of S. 20 of the Ordinance 2001 would be applicable, which clearly put a pre-condition of involvement of a Director or Officer, for deeming to be guilty of the offence and liable to prosecution and punishment---Case of the respondent before the Banking Court under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., was that, although accused was a Director of the customer/ borrower company, however even as per bank's claim and documents, he was neither involved in creation of the hypothecated goods, nor executed any Letter of Hypothecation, nor was ever involved in the alleged offence of removal of hypothecated goods, and therefore, subsection (5) of S. 20 was fully applicable to his case---Appellant conceded that neither Letter of Hypothecation was signed by the respondent nor was there any allegation of his personal involvement in the said offence of removal of hypothecated goods and there was nothing on the record to establish otherwise---Thus, it appeared that the respondent had been able to make out a case for grant of his application under Section 265-K,Cr.P.C.---However, the observations made in the impugned order passed by the Banking Court shall not be treated as a precedence in any proceedings, while dealing with the case of the appellant against the said customer company or its directors---Appeal was disposedoff. Irslan Siddiq and 3 others v. The State and another 2005 CLD 1794 rel. Waseem Hussain Jaffery for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----Suit for specific performance—Interim injunction—Agreement to sell disputed—Requirement of prima facie case Petitioner sought interim relief in suit for specific performance based on alleged agreement to sell—Respondents denied execution of agreement and claimed petitioner was a tenant whose cheques for rent were dishonoured—Trial and appellate courts concurrently declined interim relief—Held, where authenticity of agreement is in dispute and execution/payment of consideration is not admitted, petitioner must first establish a strong prima facie case by cogent evidence—Absent such proof, no interim injunction can be granted to protect possession under disputed title. Cited Cases: • Faiz ur Rehman Alvi v. Addl. District Judge 2020 YLR 2143 • Mst. Rasheed Bibi v. Muhammad Arshad 2020 MLD 1875 • Rao Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Afzal 2023 SCMR 815 (b) Civil Procedure—Injunction—Principles for grant ----Interim relief—Possession without established title—Balance of convenience—Irreparable loss Petitioner, in possession of property, claimed ownership via an agreement to sell—Respondents asserted tenancy relationship supported by a lease document—Petitioner admitted tenancy in related proceedings—Held, mere possession does not entitle a party to interim injunction unless legal title or enforceable right is established—Ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss must co-exist for interim relief—Absent these, possession cannot be protected by injunction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali v. Mahnga Khan 2004 SCMR 1111 • Muhammad Ajmal Khan v. Mst. Iqbal Mai PLJ 2018 Lahore 907 • Muhammad Ahmad Farooq v. Province of Punjab 2018 MLD 959 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 115—Tenant estoppel—Denial of landlord's title Petitioner, previously admitted to be tenant under registered lease, later claimed ownership through sale agreement—Held, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, tenant is estopped from denying landlord’s title or claiming superior right during tenancy—Principle “once a tenant, always a tenant” applicable—Petitioner cannot seek interim relief against landlord while simultaneously denying tenancy and asserting ownership without proof. Cited Cases: • Hakim Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Talaat Rana 2010 CLC 819 • Naveed Akhtar v. Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot 2021 CLC 952 • Mrs. Azra Riaz v. Addl. District Judge 2021 CLC 623 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 94 & O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2—Interim injunction—Effect of lis pendens Petitioner’s apprehension of alienation of property during suit—Court held that even if property is transferred, rights of petitioner would remain protected under doctrine of lis pendens—Hence, mere fear of alienation without established legal right does not justify grant of injunction—Held, refusal of temporary injunction was proper exercise of discretion. Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Observations made are tentative and shall not affect the merits of the pending civil suit.------- ''Where to establish a claim, evidence is required to be recorded, prima facie case cannot be assumed in favour of petitioner especially when he is yet to establish his right to hold possession of suit property or be transferred its ownership, which already vests in respondents, who are owners of the property, instead of petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant of respondents and his claim is based on mere agreement to sell which has been denied by the other side. Agreement to sell does not create any title but gives only a right to petitioner to claim specific performance of contract, if he can prove the said agreement as valid by refuting the claim of respondents that it was a forged and fabricated document. Besides, balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondents, owners of the property and not the petitioner, holder of disputed agreement to sell, as by grant of interim relief the respondents are likely to suffer more than what the petitioner would suffer if interim relief is refused.''

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S. 15---Auction of mortgaged property by financial institution---Effect of Supreme Court ruling declaring S. 15 ultra vires---Scope---Auction of mortgaged property was conducted under the originally framed S. 15 of the Ordinance before its re-enactment pursuant to National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283, wherein the Supreme Court declared the provision unconstitutional---Held, that since the Apex Court did not invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling, past transactions were not automatically protected---Further held, that the auction sale under reference could not be treated as a past and closed transaction due to the pendency of the present appeal challenging the auction proceedings---Auction confirmed under an unconstitutional legal provision was void ab initio.Cited Cases:• National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283(b) Banking Law---Public Auction Principles----Validity of auction conducted with a single bid---Lack of competitive bidding---Effect---Respondent bank conducted auction proceedings and accepted a single bid, subsequently confirming the sale without ensuring competitive bidding---Held, that acceptance of a single bid without competition contradicts the concept of a public auction and fails to achieve the best possible price---Reliance placed on Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Ltd. 2023 CLD 85, wherein the Supreme Court declared that public auctions must involve competitive bidding to be legally valid.Cited Cases:• Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Ltd. 2023 CLD 85(c) Constitutional Law---Judicial Review of Auction Rules----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act 2016---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules 2018---Validity of single-bid acceptance under Rule 3(c)(iv)---Held, that amended S. 15 of the Ordinance and subsequent Rules introduced conditions permitting single-bid acceptance under certain circumstances---However, in Muhammad Shoaib Arshad v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 CLD 638, a larger bench declared Rule 3(c)(iv) unconstitutional---Thus, the auction sale in the instant case could not derive legitimacy from the amended law.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Shoaib Arshad v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 CLD 638(d) Civil Procedure---Restitution of Property After Invalid Auction----Effect of setting aside auction confirmation---Appellant’s right to seek restitution---Scope---Held, that the confirmation of auction sale was illegal and set aside---Appellant was granted liberty to initiate proceedings for restitution and reversal of actions taken pursuant to the confirmation order---Auction purchaser acquired no valid title under the annulled proceedings.Disposition: Appeal allowed; auction confirmation declared void; appellant permitted to seek restitution.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b), 109 & 34—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 265-H(ii), 382-B & 544-A—Murder—Father setting wife on fire—Conviction based on ocular account corroborated by medical and forensic evidence—Death sentence—Scope and justificationAccused, Abid Hussain, was charged with the brutal murder of his wife, Mst. Naziran, by setting her on fire within the matrimonial home in the presence of their children. Conviction was primarily based on the direct testimony of the complainant (son of the deceased) and his sister, both natural witnesses, whose accounts were consistent and without signs of enmity. The prosecution’s version was further corroborated by medical evidence (77% burn injuries and cause of death as cardio-pulmonary arrest), forensic reports confirming the use of kerosene oil, and recovery of the bottle and burnt clothes from the scene. Motive, relating to a dispute over the sale of the family house, stood proved. The manner of the offence—setting a spouse ablaze in the presence of children—was considered heinous and premeditated. Supreme Court held that the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category, meriting the death sentence. Conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court were maintained—Appeal dismissed.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 2007 SC 539• Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530(b) Criminal trial—Appreciation of evidence—Ocular account—Related witnesses—Corroboration by medical and forensic evidence—Value of testimonyProsecution relied on testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the children of the deceased and the accused, who were residing in the same house. Their accounts, found to be natural and straightforward, were corroborated by medico-legal documents, death certificate, and FSL reports, confirming the use of kerosene oil. Supreme Court reiterated that close relationship with the deceased or accused does not automatically discredit testimony where evidence remains unshaken and trustworthy. The corroborative evidence ruled out the possibility of accident or suicide, establishing a clear nexus between the appellant and commission of the offence—Testimony of closely related eye-witnesses, found credible, was sufficient for conviction.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)—Acquittal—Benefit of doubt—Alleged instigation not corroborated by evidence—No specific role assigned in FIR—No presence at the scene of occurrence—Presumption of innocenceCo-accused Sabir Hussain, brother of main accused Abid Hussain, was charged under S. 302(b) read with S. 109 PPC on allegations of instigating the murder. However, no eye-witness account established his presence at the scene or any active participation. FIR and prosecution evidence failed to assign him any definitive role in the commission of the offence. Supreme Court held that mere implication in a domestic altercation without substantiated evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under criminal law. Giving benefit of doubt, the Court set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below—Appeal allowed—Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.Cited Cases:• Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048• Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 302(b)Conviction for murder—Solitary fatal shot—Sentence of death converted to imprisonment for life—Accused was charged with causing death of the deceased by inflicting two firearm injuries, one of which proved fatal—Medical evidence confirmed only one fatal firearm injury on the neck and a simple grazing wound on the arm—Evidence of injured eye-witness and other ocular witnesses found confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence—Although presence of injured witness reinforced prosecution version, no extraordinary circumstances were present to justify capital punishment—Held, single shot causing death is an accepted mitigating circumstance justifying conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment—Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.Rehmat Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 2034; Muhammad Anwar v. State 2011 PCrLJ 289; Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582; Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu v. The State 2014 SCMR 1034 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 374 & 382-BDeath reference—Scope—Appellate court while deciding murder reference under S. 374, Cr.P.C., commuted death sentence to life imprisonment—Held, even slightest mitigating circumstance may justify lesser sentence—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. also extended to the appellant—Death sentence not confirmed.(c) Evidence Act (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984):----Art. 40Recovery of weapon of offence—Admissibility—Pistol recovered on disclosure by accused under custody—Crime empties collected from scene matched with recovered pistol—Recovery proceedings though not witnessed by a private person—Held, recovery admissible and relevant under Art. 40 QSO—Absence of private witness not fatal—Provides corroboration to prosecution case.Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 ref.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 302(b)—Proof of motiveLand dispute—Accused sought to unlawfully possess land owned by widow—Deceased, a local councillor, was supporting widow’s legal rights—Pending civil litigation and documents substantiating motive produced by prosecution—Held, motive proved through oral and documentary evidence—Accused's version of lawful possession and self-defence found false and introduced belatedly—Burden under Art. 121 QSO not discharged by accused.(e) Criminal trial:----Ocular testimony—Credibility of injured witnessPresence of injured witness—Weight of testimony—Injured eye-witness had firearm entry wound confirmed by medical evidence—Trial court’s partial disbelief of testimony regarding co-accused not sufficient to discredit entire version—Eye-witness account corroborated by other witnesses and forensic evidence—Held, testimony of injured witness carries inherent credibility.Saleem Zada v. The State 2019 SCMR 1309 ref.(f) Criminal trial:----Self-defence—Plea introduced belatedlyPlea of self-defence raised for first time during trial—No such claim made during initial investigation or pre-trial bail proceedings—Only two empties recovered despite claim of crossfire—Land possession documents disproved accused’s claim of lawful occupation—Held, plea of self-defence not proved and introduced merely as afterthought—Burden under Art. 121 QSO not discharged.Mian Muhammad Ajmal v. Abdul Aziz PLJ 2004 SC 642 ref.----Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 78420-J of 2019 dismissed with modification—Conviction upheld, death sentence under S. 302(b), PPC commuted to imprisonment for life with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.—Murder Reference No. 308 of 2019 answered in negative—Death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Chance witnesses—Unexplained presence at scene of occurrence—Credibility of ocular account—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-A—Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under S.302(b) PPC and sentenced to death, later converted to life imprisonment by the High Court—Alleged eyewitnesses, including complainant, were residents of a different village and admitted as chance witnesses—Prosecution failed to prove telephone contact that allegedly prompted their presence at the crime scene—No phone number was provided in the FIR or by witnesses—Held, unexplained presence of chance witnesses at the place of occurrence rendered their testimony doubtful—Reliance placed on Mst. Suahra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142) and Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Pitta (2017 SCMR 142).(b) Criminal trial—Ocular account contradicted by medical evidence—Doubtful presence of witnesses—Only two injuries attributed to the accused by eyewitnesses, whereas medical evidence revealed four injuries including wounds not mentioned in the ocular version—Failure of prosecution to explain all injuries sustained by deceased suggested that witnesses were not present at the scene—Conflict between medical and ocular evidence warranted benefit of doubt—Reference made to Muhammad Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 137) and Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622).(c) Criminal trial—Unnatural conduct of witnesses—Failure to intervene or apprehend accused—Doubt on prosecution narrative—Despite being close relatives of deceased, witnesses made no effort to save her or apprehend accused armed only with a kassi—Distance between accused and witnesses was minimal—Inaction of eyewitnesses was unnatural and indicative of fabricated testimony—Held, such conduct rendered their presence at the scene implausible—Reliance placed on Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315), Zafar v. The State (2018 SCMR 326), and Liaquat Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 95).(d) Criminal trial—Recovery of weapon—Lack of forensic corroboration—Evidentiary value—Recovery of kassi at accused’s instance held inconsequential in absence of positive forensic report—High Court also disbelieved recovery in impugned judgment—Held, recovery uncorroborated and of no evidentiary value—Reliance placed on Zahoor Ahmad v. The State (2017 SCMR 1662).(e) Criminal trial—Motive—Failure to prove previous quarrel—Relationship between parties normal—Unsubstantiated motive weakens prosecution—Prosecution claimed motive based on domestic quarrel between deceased and petitioner, but complainant admitted no prior disputes existed—No evidence of divorce, custody litigation, or any other estrangement produced—Petitioner and deceased had jointly gone to agricultural fields on day of incident—Held, prosecution failed to substantiate motive, which was rightly disbelieved by High Court.(f) Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Principles—Presumption of innocence—Case contained multiple material doubts and inconsistencies including unconvincing presence of witnesses, contradictions with medical evidence, and lack of motive—Held, even a single doubt is sufficient to acquit accused—Petitioner acquitted by extending benefit of doubt—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Impugned judgment set aside—Petitioner acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in another case.Cited Cases:• Mst. Suahra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142)• Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Pitta (2017 SCMR 142)• Muhammad Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 137)• Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622)• Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315)• Zafar v. The State (2018 SCMR 326)• Liaquat Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 95)• Zahoor Ahmad v. The State (2017 SCMR 1662)• Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)• Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)