Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C) & Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.):----S. 392, S. 397, S. 34 P.P.C, S. 342, S. 154 Cr.P.CRobbery—Eyewitness testimony—Immediate arrest—Corroborative evidence—Prosecution's burden of proof—Scope—Appellant convicted under S. 392 P.P.C. for robbery at gunpoint—Trial court sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine—Held, that prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on multiple factors—(i) FIR was lodged promptly within an hour of the incident, eliminating the possibility of a fabricated case—(ii) Appellant was caught red-handed on the spot with the stolen items and an unlicensed firearm—(iii) Independent eyewitnesses, including the complainant and his fiancée, provided consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony—(iv) Arresting officer's testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination—(v) Defence failed to produce any rebuttal evidence or establish false implication—(vi) Mere absence of independent Mashirs (witnesses) was not fatal, as it is a judicially recognized fact that people avoid involvement in criminal proceedings—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474 and Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857—Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld.(b) Role of Eyewitnesses in Conviction:----Reliability of eyewitness testimony—Consistency of evidence—ScopeAppellant challenged conviction on grounds that prosecution witnesses were unreliable and had contradictions in their statements—Held, that prosecution witnesses provided a coherent and corroborated chain of events—Complainant and his fiancée independently identified appellant as the robber—Their testimonies were supported by immediate recovery of stolen items and the appellant's arrest at the scene—Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not affect credibility unless they create doubt regarding the entire prosecution case—Reliance placed on Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917 and Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725—Court found no contradictions serious enough to shake prosecution's case—Appeal dismissed.(c) Acquittal of Co-accused and Its Effect:----Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit appellant—ScopeAppellant argued that co-accused was acquitted, implying doubt in prosecution’s case—Held, that acquittal of co-accused did not affect appellant’s conviction as the circumstances differed—Co-accused Shan was arrested days later and shown to the complainant before the identification parade, rendering the parade inadmissible—No stolen property was recovered from co-accused, unlike the appellant, who was caught with stolen items at the scene—Court reiterated that each accused's liability is assessed based on individual evidence against them—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713—Appeal dismissed.(d) Case Law References:• Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474• Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857• Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917• Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725• Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 394, 397, 337-F(ii) & 34—Robbery and hurt—Scope of prohibitory clause Offences alleged against the applicant carried maximum punishments of four, seven, and three years respectively and thus did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Bail to be considered liberally in such circumstances unless exceptional factors exist. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S.497(2)—Bail—Further inquiry—Delayed identification parade—Absence of recovery Applicant arrested on 14.05.2023 but shown arrested in the case on 15.05.2023—Identification parade held after ten days, without explanation for delay—Such belated parade held unreliable and lost evidentiary value—No recovery of robbed cash, articles, or phone from applicant—Allegation of using robbed SIM card unsupported by seizure of phone or connecting material—Case found fit for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail granted accordingly. Irfan v. State 2018 YLR 85 and Muhammad Idrees v. State 2023 MLD 1972 relied upon. (c) Evidence—Identification parade—Delay—Effect Identification parade held after lapse of ten days from arrest—Unexplained delay renders the process doubtful—Reliance on such identification without corroborative recovery or contemporaneous evidence held unsafe for denial of bail. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Principles governing grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences When the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail becomes a rule and refusal an exception—Continued detention before conclusion of trial amounts to pre-trial punishment. (e) Practice and procedure—Conditions of bail and caution Bail granted subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations held tentative and not to prejudice trial; court empowered to cancel bail if misused. Cited cases: • Irfan v. The State 2018 YLR 85 • Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2023 MLD 1972 (g) Disposition — Bail application allowed—Applicant Lal Muhammad released on bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. on furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations declared tentative and without prejudice to trial proceedings.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Criminal Law—Post-Arrest Bail—Juvenile Offender—Further Inquiry —Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), S. 497; Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 397, 34; Juvenile Justice System Act The petitioner, Umer Farooq, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 (Murder), 397 (Robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 34 (Common Intention) of the PPC, read with Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The FIR alleged that the petitioner was involved in a fatal shooting during a robbery attempt. ---- Key Observations by the Court: Non-Nomination in FIR: The petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, and his implication arose from a delayed statement by a prosecution witness recorded five days after the incident. Question of Identification: The witness stated that the unknown assailant had a muffled face and only bore a resemblance to the petitioner based on physical appearance, raising doubts about proper identification. Incriminating Evidence: Although a pistol was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, the forensic report revealed that empties and the pistol were received simultaneously at the laboratory, rendering the report inconsequential. Juvenile Status: The petitioner was a juvenile at the time of arrest, and his trial was being conducted by a Juvenile Court. Delay in Trial: Despite a directive from the court on 05.04.2022 to conclude the trial within two months, the trial remained incomplete after a significant delay. Legal Principle Applied: The case fell under the ambit of "further inquiry" as defined in Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. Detention of a juvenile offender for an indefinite period without substantial progress in trial is against the principles of justice. Disposition: The appeal was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within two months and adopt coercive measures to ensure witness attendance. A report explaining any further delay must be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Appellate Court.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kamber/Shahdadkot, for murder and robbery under Sections 302(b) and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and additional imprisonment for failing to pay compensation. The case arose from an incident on May 31, 2010, where the appellant, along with others, was accused of robbing and killing a man. The appellant appealed the conviction, while the state sought to enhance the life sentence to the death penalty through a criminal revision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification parade and other evidence provided by the prosecution were credible enough to support the conviction. 2- Whether the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the prosecution's evidence created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. 3- Whether the life sentence imposed on the appellant should be enhanced to the death penalty. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court overturned the appellant's conviction, acquitting him of all charges due to the following reasons: --Identification Parade Flaws: The court found that the identification parade was flawed and lacked credibility. Witnesses had seen the accused before the parade, and their testimonies during the parade were not specific enough to establish the appellant's role in the crime. The court also noted that the witnesses provided conflicting accounts regarding the circumstances of the identification parade. --Inconsistencies and Contradictions: The court identified several contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not align with each other or with the evidence presented. These discrepancies raised significant doubt about the reliability of the evidence against the appellant. --Lack of Corroborating Evidence: The court highlighted the absence of crucial evidence, such as the recovery of stolen items or weapons. The prosecution also failed to produce key documents, such as the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, that could have corroborated the charges. --Legal Precedents: The court reiterated that any reasonable doubt in a criminal case must be resolved in favor of the accused. The material inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence created such doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal. The court dismissed the state's criminal revision for sentence enhancement as moot due to the acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: Akhtar Ali and Others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Ghulam Qadir and 2 Others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Sardar Bibi and Another v. Munir Ahmad and Others (2017 SCMR 344) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 342, 417 & 103 Acquittal Appeal—Principles governing interference with acquittal—Standard of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Benefit of doubt—Role of accused—Mere presence insufficient for conviction—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent (Babal son of Abdul Lateef) in a case registered under Sections 302, 396, and 397, PPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of five hours without plausible explanation, raising doubts about the prosecution's version. Despite the complainant and eyewitnesses claiming to have identified the accused at the scene and allegedly chasing them to their residence, no immediate report was made to the police. The prosecution failed to assign any specific role to the respondent during the incident, and no evidence established his active participation. It is a settled principle of law that mere presence at the scene of an incident without an overt act is insufficient to warrant conviction. Furthermore, any doubt in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused. The Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent, and appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittal unless a gross misreading of evidence is evident, which was not the case here. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Mst. Jallan v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 2003 SC 644) Muhammad Zafar and another v. Rustam Ali and others (2014 SCMR 1639) Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others (2017 SCMR 1710) Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State (1992 SCMR 498) The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1995 SCMR 635) Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal upheld.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 397---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129, Illustration (g)---Qatl-i-amd and robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant not an eye-witness---Best evidence, withholding of---Presumption--- Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing robbery with causing death and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years---Validity---Complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence and no eye-witness was cited in FIR---Subsequently, complainant introduced an eye-witness through his supplementary statement---Such kind of witness nominated later on through supplementary statement was made for the purpose to strengthen case of prosecution at the behest of police or some other ulterior motives---Such aspect was enough to shatter credibility of such witness---Material witnesses of secure and safe custody as well as safe transmission of crime weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory were not produced, which was a clear violation of provision of Art. 129, Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--- Prosecution failed to establish charge against accused as the evidence was suffering from infirmities and there existed sufficient doubts in the case of the prosecution---Trial Court failed to extend benefit of doubts to the accused and judgment of Trial Court was suffering from misreading and non-appreciation of evidence available on record---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and accused was acquitted of the charge--- Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Kamran v. The State 2021 SCMR 479; Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervaiz and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600; Mir Zaman and 5 others v. The State and others 2012 SCMR 580 and Muhammad Shah Khesro and another v. The State and others 2006 PCr.LJ 606 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery of crime weapon---Proof---When chains of circumstantial evidence from safe and secure custody of case property till its safe transmission to forensic science laboratory are missing, then safe custody and transmission are not probable---Positive report of Ballistic expert loses its significance in such circumstances. Nazeer Ahmed v. State 2016 SCMR 1656 rel

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 381-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 35 & 397---Theft of vehicle---Appreciation of evidence---Conviction for several offences at one trial---Concurrentcommutation of sentence---Accused was charged for stealing the cars of differentcomplainants---Said cases were tried and accused was convicted and sentenced in both thecases---Accused contended that the sentences awarded to him might be ordered to runconcurrently as required under Ss. 35 & 397, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Section 35, Cr.P.C.,described that when a person was convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the TrialCourt was obliged to sentence him for approved offences, according to the separatepunishments prescribed---Such punish-ments when consisting of imprisonment wouldcommence one after the expiry of the other, unless the court directed that such punishmentswould run concurrently, meaning thereby that the sentences of imprisonment in two or moreoffences tried at one trial would run consecutively---Direction that such punishment wouldrun concurrently was an exception---Provision of S.35, Cr.P.C. was only applicable when aperson was convicted at one trial of two or more offences---Court under said section coulddirect a concurrent running of sentences only when the accused was convicted at one trial oftwo or more distinct offences---In the present case, both the offences were committed withdistinct and separate criminal objectives sought to be achieved at different points of time, assuch, justification to seek concurrent running of all the offences, in particular circumstances,did not arise at all---Section 397, Cr.P.C., prescribed for the running of different sentencesinflicted on an offender, at separate trials, for different offences, without any clog of time,place and nature of the offence---Section 35, Cr.P.C., enjoined that it would come into playwhen a person was convicted at one trial of two or more offences---Since direction under S.35 of the Cr.P.C. was contingent on the conviction of a person for several offences at onetrial, as such, said section did not attract in the circumstances of the present case, because theaccused had been convicted at different trials for the offences committed at different timesand places---Trial Court had ample discretion under S.397, Cr.P.C., to direct the subsequentand previous sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently, however, the Trial Court seizedof the subsequent trial and the appellate/revisional court in appeal/revision arising there-fromwas competent to direct that the subsequent conviction and sentence would run concurrentlywith previous one---Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances, however, all the sentences awarded to the accused were directed to run concurrently.Mst. Zubaida v. Falak Sher and others 2007 SCMR 548; Mst. Shaista Bibi andanother v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and 2 others PLD 2015 SC 15; Sajjad Ikranand others v. Sikandar Hayat and others 2016 SCMR 467 and Rahib Ali v. State 2018 SCMR418 rel.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 395 & 397 – Dacoity – Identification Parade – Recovery of Robbed Property – Further Inquiry The accused were charged under Sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly committing dacoity. The prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade, which is mandatory when the accused are not nominated in the FIR. The mere recovery of stolen property from the accused is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence. Additionally, no weapons were recovered, nor were any injuries inflicted upon the complainant. Reliance was placed on Gul Rehman alias Gul v. State (2012 YLR 1146), Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali (2002 SCMR 1304), and Muhammad Rafique v. State (1997 SCMR 412). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2) – Bail – Further Inquiry – Consideration of Lesser Sentence The investigation had been completed, and no plausible evidence was presented to directly link the accused to the alleged crime. Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. allows bail where the case calls for further inquiry. The lesser punishment prescribed under S. 395 PPC is four years, and under S. 397 PPC is seven years, which supports the argument for bail. The court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as punishment, and liberty remains a paramount consideration. Reliance was placed on Shehzore v. State (2006 YLR 3167) and Manzoor v. State (PLD 1972 SC 81). (c) Principle of Bail – Liberty and Punishment: The court reiterated the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment. The liberty of the accused is to be prioritized unless compelling evidence suggests their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in heinous offenses, bail may be granted if the case requires further inquiry. ----Disposition: The bail application was allowed. The applicants were admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds of PKR 500,000 each with PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The observations made are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not prejudice the trial's merits.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mansehra, for their involvement in a bank robbery that occurred on February 17, 2011, at the UBL Sabzi Mandi Branch, Mansehra. Five armed culprits entered the bank, detained the staff and customers, and looted a significant amount of cash, along with mobile phones and a repeater gun. The appellants were arrested on February 27, 2011, and a joint identification parade was conducted. Subsequently, they were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395/397 PPC and 5 years under Section 412 PPC, along with fines. The appellants challenged the conviction in the Federal Shariat Court, claiming that the identification and evidence were flawed. ----Issues: 1- Was the identification parade conducted in accordance with legal standards, and was it reliable? 2- Did the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove the appellants' involvement in the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt? 3- Were the appellants entitled to the benefit of the doubt due to the inconsistencies and irregularities in the investigation and trial process? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Parade: The court found significant flaws in the identification parade. The magistrate did not verify how long the accused had been in police custody before the parade, and the identification parade was conducted 22 days after the occurrence, which reduced its evidentiary value. Additionally, the parade was conducted jointly for multiple accused, further diminishing its reliability. --Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants. The eyewitnesses did not positively identify the appellants as the culprits, and there were discrepancies in their testimonies. The circumstantial evidence, including the identification parade and recoveries, was not credible enough to sustain the conviction. --Benefit of the Doubt: Given the numerous inconsistencies, including the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Cr.P.C regarding the involvement of independent witnesses in the recovery process, the court ruled that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court observed that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, they should be acquitted as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of the doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Tang Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Abdul Rashid v. State (PLD 1975 Kar. 92) Ballia and others v. State (1985 SCMR 854) Nasrullah and another v. State (1977 PCr.LJ 132) Rahmat v. State (PLD 1976 Lah. 1444) Muhammad Shafi and others v. State (PLD 1967 SC 167) Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad (PLD 1975 SC 607) Afzal v. State (1983 SCMR 1) Niaz Muhammad alias Taja and another v. State (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 211) Malik Aman v. State (1986 SCMR 17) Sultan and others v. State (1987 SCMR 1177) Khair Gul v. State (1989 SCMR 491) The State v. Abba Ali Shah (PLD 1988 Kar. 409) These precedents were used to support the court's reasoning regarding the reliability of identification parades, the importance of independent witnesses in recovery processes, and the application of the benefit of the doubt principle.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22---Qatl-iamd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death orgrievous hurt, rash or negligent act, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefitof doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Test identification parade---Scope---Accusedwas charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by way of firing duringrobbery---Admittedly, complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence and the FIR waslodged on the night at about 9:30 p.m. against unknown accused persons---Record revealedthat the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant under S. 161,Cr.P.C. on the night---Appellant/ accused was arrested on 11.1.2017 on the basis ofconfessional statement of co-accused under S. 164, Cr.P.C. in another case---Identificationparade of the accused/appellant was conducted on 25.01.2017, in which the witnessidentified the accused/appellant---Prior to said identification parade accused/ appellant wasproduced before the Judicial Magistrate for identification parade but the Judicial Magistratedue to non production of CNIC of accused refused the request of Investigating Officer---Identification parade conducted in the police lockup could not be relied upon---Prosecutionalso produced two other ocular witnesses, but they in their court statements did not name theaccused/appellant---Since the accused was not nominated in the FIR both the ocularwitnesses were also required to participate in the identification parade---Prosecution hadproduced two witnesses as ocular witnesses but as per other witness, he along with deceasedwas proceeding towards their work place meanwhile the incident occurred---Said witnessneither in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., nor in his statement before court had shownthe presence of the ocular witnesses at the place of occurrence---Complainant neither in hisfard-e-bayan nor in his court statement narrated the presence of the ocular witnesses---One ofthe ocular witnesses had stated that they had brought the deceased to the hospital bymotorcycle but the said witness during cross-examination had stated that the deceased wasboarded into police vehicle, while the complainant during cross-examination stated that hewent with the dead body in a vehicle owned by a contractor---Complainant further stated thatthey remained at place of occurrence till 9:00 p.m. (night) meaning thereby they remainednearly four hours at the place of occurrence but they did not take the corpse to nearbyhospital---Such a conduct on the part of the complainant and the ocular witnesses who were related to the deceased did not appeal to a prudent mind when the corpse was lying in thepole of blood in front of them for about four hours---Witness of identification of accusedneither mentioned the presence of ocular witnesses and complainant at the place ofoccurrence nor the site plan produced by the Investigation Officer confirmed the presence ofthe complainant despite the Investigating Officer stated that during site inspection thecomplainant was with them---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentencerecorded by the Trial Court.Kanwar Anwaar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate PLD 2019 SC 488 rel.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 22---Test identification parade of accused before the Trial Court---Scope---Identification parade of accused person before the Trial Court during the trial was unsafe.Haider Ali v. State 2016 SCMR 1554 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robberyor dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rash or negligent act, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Site plan---Evidentiary value---Site plan was not asubstantive piece of evidence but it carried weight, same could not be brushed aside easily.Abdul Sattar v. State 2008 PCr.LJ 869; Mehr Ali and others v. The State 1968 SCMR161 and Khan and another v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 24 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robberyor dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rash or negligent act, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical and ocular evidence---Contradiction---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by way of firingduring robbery---Medico Legal Certificate revealed that the deceased was brought to hospitalat 7:35 p.m., while the remaining witnesses did not support the version of Medical Officer---Prosecution witness had stated that they reached the hospital at 8:30 p.m., thereafter policereached, while according to other witness, he remained at the place of occurrence till 8:00p.m. when the police reached there and had taken into possession the shirt of deceased at thespot---Said witness further replied that he reached the hospital at 8:30 p.m. but contrary tothe above, the complainant during cross-examination stated that they remained at the spotfrom 5:30 to 9:30 p.m. and the police reached at the spot at about 8:50 p.m.---Complainantduring examination stated that he gave the application to the police at hospital at about 9:30p.m. and later on he signed the said application in the police station---Testimonies of theprosecution in respect of exact time of occurrence were lacking certainty because when thecomplainant remained at the spot at 9:30 p.m. with the corpse then at 7:35 p.m. who was examined by the Medico Legal Officer and whose blood-stained clothes were taken intopossession by the Investigating Officer when at that time the corpse was lying at the spot---Investigating Officer visited the site along with complainant but he did not take intopossession the deceased's motorcycle which was the main cause/ reason of the incident---Circumstances established that medical evidence did not support the ocular account---Appealwas allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded bythe Trial Court, in circumstances.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robberyor dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rash or negligent act, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about four hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by way of firingduring robbery---Occurrence had taken place at 5:30 p.m. but the report was lodged at 9:30p.m. after delay of four hours without any explanation despite the fact that as per MedicoLegal Officer, the dead body was brought to the hospital at 7:35 p.m. by the police---Possibility of deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out, in circumstances---Appealwas allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded bythe Trial Court.Nazir Ahmed v. State 2018 SCMR 787 rel.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robberyor dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rash or negligent act, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence---Delay in dispatching recovered weapon---Effect---Accused was charged for committingmurder of brother of the complainant by way of firing during robbery---Alleged weapon wasrecovered on the pointation of accused from an open place, which was not in exclusivepossession of the appellant---Said weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratorywithout empties after delay of thirty three days without any explanation---Forensic ScienceLaboratory Report revealed that the weapon was in working condition---Such a positivereport could not help the prosecution because the weapon had to be sent with casing/emptiesfor examination, so as to examine whether the said empties were fired from the said weaponor otherwise---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictionand sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.