Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Per prosecution story motive behind the commission of murder of deceased was dispute over landed property---Prosecution witnesses in the case were brothers of deceased, in their evidence recorded before Trial Court complainant deposed that the disputed land was agricultural and situated in C-(Chhatt) in Baluchistan Province and the said land was cultivable on rain water---Other witness deposed that disputed land was a plot of 5000 square feet situated in DMJ-(Dera Murad Jamali) Baluchistan---Said contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses being real brothers was material in nature, as the witnesses failed to mention the particular location of the land, as such an inference could be drawn that there existed no dispute over lands between deceased and accused party---Even to the admission of both the witnesses that no any case of civil nature was lodged against the accused persons---Even the title of lands or plot was not brought on record of Trial Court to establish that land or plot actually belonged to deceased on which the dispute was going on between the parties---No any witness from the place where the alleged land was situated was examined to lend support to the prosecution claim and to establish the motive that prompted the accused to assassinate the brother of complainant---Motive of the case remained shrouded in mystery and could not be established by the prosecution to believe that deceased was done to death for an enmity on lands---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Amin Ali v. The State 2011 SCMR 323; Safdar and 3 others v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1870; Qurban Ali v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1601; Shakeel Ahmed Memon v. The State 2020 PCr.LJ Note 73 and Afaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 YLR 676 ref. Tariq Mehmood v. The State 2025 SCMR 780 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 27 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant as per prosecution story had deposed in the Court that incident occurred in his presence and he identified the perpetrators of the crime as appellant and co-accused who came there at about 12:00 Noon on 08.05.2021 and fired upon deceased with pistol upon the instigation of co-accused---Injured was taken to hospital but succumbed to injuries in the way---Complainant informed the police about the incident promptly and police party from Police Station concerned reached the hospital, inspected dead body, inspected place of incident and after post mortem handed over the dead body to the complainant---Matter of record that complainant and witnesses remained with the police party for about more than three hours but they did not record the facts of incidents to the police and turned up to record FIR on next day viz. 09.05.2021---First Investigating Officer deposed that he asked the complainant to record FIR but he refused and said that he would lodge the FIR later on after consultation---First Information Report of the incident was recorded on 09.05.2021 at about 03.00 pm with a delay of about 27 hours, which remained unexplained---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant had claimed enmity with co-accused "MD" but the evidence of Medical Officer told a different story, he deposed that the dead body was brought to hospital by sons of co-accused "MD"---Question arose that had the co-accused "MD" and his brothers committed murder, why his sons would have been present at the place of incident and removed the dead body to hospital---Inference could be drawn that the eye-witnesses were not present at the place of incident when that incident occurred and appeared at police station later and recorded the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Jahangir's case 2024 SCMR 1741 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Inconsistency---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Eye-witness deposed that the deceased sustained four injuries, while per statement of Medical Officer deceased sustained five injuries which were through and through---Said witnesses deposed that deceased died while in the way to Hospital, but per deposition of Medical Officer, deceased died instantaneously---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Preparation of memos---Inconsistencies---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer, who conducted the initial investigation, prepared inquest report in hospital, prepared memo of inspection of injuries, secured last worn clothes of deceased, handed over the dead body to complainant, visited place of incident and prepared inspection memo on the very day in the company of complainant and witness through a Roznamcha Entry 9-A which he produced before Trial Court while recording his evidence to establish that he departed from the police station soon after the incident---Page number 02 of Roznamcha/entry book produced by this witness evidenced all entries in the book on the relevant day started from entry No 4 to 9, there was no other entry having A, B except that entry, which created doubt on the movement of said witness from police station and recording of the memos in presence and company of complainant party, it appeared that all the memos were managed at police station---Second Investigating Officer denied of existence of such entry in police record---Said witness deposed that at police station roznamcha entries were recorded in acceding order of 1,2,3 and not by 1A, 1B--- Said witness deposed that there was no any entry 9-A available in police station or shown to him by first Investigating Officer---Such piece of evidence rendered by second Investigating Officer belied the movement and departure of first Investigating Officer from Police Station to the place of incident and hospital---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses----Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---First Investigating Officer deposed that he went to place of incident where blood was found but it was not in a position to be secured for laboratory analysis---Seven empty shells of 30 bore TT pistol were secured from the place of incident and sealed on spot in presence of complainant and witnesses---Surprisingly second Investigating Officer had deposed that bloodstained earth was collected from the place of incident and sent to laboratory for analysis wherefrom report was received that it was a human blood---Said dishonest improvements and exaggerations in the prosecution case created serious dent in the story, for which the benefit hadto be given to the accused who was blue eyed child of the criminal law---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Akhtar and others v. The State 2025 SCMR 45 and Muhammad Riaz and others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1839 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Recovery witness deposed that appellant was arrested on 16.05.2021 from Eidgah Chowk, pistol was secured from his shalwar fold and such recovery memo was prepared by first Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses at 05.00 pm---Second Investigating Officer did not depose a single word in examination in chief about arrest of accused and recovery of TT pistol from possession of appellant in murder case wherein he produced memo of recovery and arrest, forensic and ballistic reports---However in offshoot case, said witness deposed that recovery was affected from the accused in presence of witnesses from Eidgah Road---Said contradictory versions of the witness in two cases belied the recovery proceedings---Report of Chemical Laboratory that empties matched with the recovered weapon was also of no significance as crime empties were sent to forensic laboratory on 19.05.2021 along with TT Pistol allegedly recovered on 16.05.2021---To establish that the empties were actually recovered from the place of incident, the sealed parcel should have been sent on the day of incident, but actually was sent on 19.05.2021 along with recovered pistol which created doubt as to the safe custody of case property, thus casted doubt and rendered chemical report inadmissible in evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muneer Malik v. The State 2022 SCMR 1494 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material witness---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant in his evidence and FIR alleged that the incident had taken place during the peak hours of the day and witnessed by two witnesses and complainant himself---One of the witnesses was brother of complainant and other was his relative---Relative of complainant was not examined during trial, he was neither given up nor summoned to appear in the witness box---Evidence of said witness was crucial for the prosecution case as two other witnesses were brothers inter se and inimical towards accused---Non examination of the said witness led to a presumption that his appearance in the witness box would not have favored prosecution, as envisaged under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---By withholding that best piece of evidence the prosecution itself created a doubt in its story, benefit of which would accrue in favor of the accused as a matter of right---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging the FIR---Scope---Mere delay in registration of FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case, but prosecution is required to furnish plausible explanation in that regard; missing such factor creates dent in the prosecution story. Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Assumption and presumption---Conviction---Scope---Conviction cannot be recorded on the basisof mere assumptions and presumptions, surmises and conjectures. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prudent mind appears in the prosecution case, it would be sufficient to discredit the prosecution case---Existence of multiple circumstances is not required. Rehmatullah and 2 others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1782 rel. Sadam Hussain Kalhoro for Appellant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 80 and 81 of 2023). Nihal Khan, Saeed Ahmed Dashti for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2023). Muhammad Noonari Deputy Prosecutor Gneral, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 19th May, 2025. Judgment Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J .--- Through this common judgment I, propose to decide the fate of captioned Appeals Nos. 80 of 2023 and 81 of 2023 filed by the appellant/ Convict Bakhtiar Ali Domki, as both the appeals are result of the conviction in a murder case and offshoot recovery case of weapon used in the commission of crime passed by the same Trial Court. The Appellant / Convict through these appeals has attacked the judgment dated 29-08-2023 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC Jacobabad (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No 334 of 2021 and Sessions Case No. 237 of 2021 Re "The State v. Bakhtiar Ali Domki". In Appeal against conviction bearing number 80 of 2023 the appellant has been convicted for the charge of an offence punishable under sections 302, 114, 34, P.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased, in failure thereof to further suffer Simple Imprisonment (SI) for one year, with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In Appeal against conviction bearing number 81 of 2023 Appellant has been additionally convicted for the charge of an offence punishable under sections 23(i)(a) and 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/, in default of payment of fine to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Year more. 2. Facts germane to prosecution story as narrated in FIR lodged 09.05.2021, by complainant Qurban Ali on are that there was dispute between the Complainant and accused Mazari Domki parties on landed property. Saith Ali brother of complainant came to visit him at Jacobabad on 08.05.2021. Complainant along with Seengar Ali, Saith Ali and Saddam Hussain went to Mouladad bus stop/Anaj (grain) Mandi chowk, to see off Saith Ali for Baluchistan. They were waiting for transport when at about 12:00 noon time, accused Bakhtiar, Bilawal and Mazari, all by caste Domki came there. On instigation of accused Mazari Domki, accused Bakhtiar and Bilawal took out TT pistols from shalwar fold and accused Bakhtiar fired TT pistol shots at Saith Ali, which hit him on his right side of chest, accused Bilawal on instigation of accused Mazari fired TT pistol shots at deceased Saith Ali, which hit him on right side of neck, right shoulder and right side of chin, who fell down the ground. Due to fear of weapons complainant party remained silent. Accused made escape good to northern side after commission of crime. Complainant arranged vehicle and removed Saith Ali to Civil Hospital Jacobabad in injured condition. He informed police about the incident, Saith Ali succumbed to injuries on way to Hospital. On arrival at Civil Hospital Jacobabad, Police of City Police Station arrived there and conducted necessary formalities at hospital. After post-mortem dead body was handed over to complainant for burial. After performing burial rituals of deceased, complainant appeared at police station and recorded his complaint against the accused named above due to annoyance over landed property committed the murder of deceased Saith Ali. 3. Investigation took its course, Investigation Officer inspected the place of incident, recorded 161, Cr.P.C statements of prosecution witnesses, arrested the nominated accused Bakhtiar Ali and recovered weapon used in the commission of crime. Separate FIR No 45 of 2021 at Police Station City Jacobabad under sections 23(i)(a) and 25 of Sindh Arms Act 2013 was recorded by the IO Sikandar Ali on behalf of state. I.O. sent bloodstained earth, bloodstained clothes, recovered empties and crime weapon for forensic analysis. On completion of investigation IO submitted separate reports under section 173, Cr.P.C before the concerned Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate on taking cognizance of case and completion of formalities sent up both the cases before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad for disposal in accordance with law, which were made over to the Learned Trial Court. 4. Both the cases were tried separately,in compliance to requirement of section 265-C, Cr.P.C police papers were supplied to the accused, he was indicted for Charge, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. In Sessions Case No 334 of 2021 to prove the charge of murder, prosecution examined PW-1 Tapedar Kamil at Ex.09, he produced sketch of the place of incident, PW-2 Complainant Qurban Ali at Ex.10, he produced copy of receipt of receiving dead body of deceased Saith Ali and FIR, at Exs.10-A to 10-B, respectively, PW-3 Seengar Ali at Ex.11, he produced memo of dead body of deceased at Ex.11-A, danistnama (inquest report) at Ex.11-B, memo. of wardhat at Ex.11-C, PW-4 PC Ali Aijaz at Ex.12, PW-05 Ghulam Murtaza at Ex.13, he produced attested photostat copies of roznamcha entries Nos.4,5,6,7,8,9 and 09-A (one Sheet) at Ex.13-A, attested photo state copies of roznamcha entries Nos.11,12,13,14,15 and 16 (one Sheet) at Ex.13-B, dead body inspection form at Ex.13-C, memo. of blood stained clothes of deceased at Ex.13-D, PW-6, Dr.Bilal Ahmed at Ex.14, who produced post mortem report of deceased at Ex.14-A. PW-7 PC Ahsan Ahmed at Ex.15, he produced memo of arrest and recovery at Ex.15-A, memo. of place of wardhat of recovery and arrest at Ex.15-B, PW-08 SIP Sikander Ali at Ex.16, he produced roznamcha entries Nos.18,19 and 20 (one sheet) at Ex.16-A, CR.41.2021 dated 17.05.2021 at Ex.16-B, permission letter of SSP Jacobabad at Ex.16-C, attested photo state copy of FIR No.45/2021 at Ex.16-D, roznamcha entry No.15 at Ex.16-E, roznamcha entries Nos.18 and 19 (one sheet) at Ex.16-F, ballistic expert report at Ex.16-G, chemical report at Ex.16-H. Thereafter, learned DDPP for State closed side of prosecution evidence vide statement at Ex.17. 5. In Sessions Case No. 237 of 2021 to prove its case for the charge of recovery of illicit weapon used in the commission of murder, prosecution examined PW-1 PC Ahsan Ahmed at Ex.5, he produced carbon copy of memo. of arrest and recovery at Ex.5-A, carbon copy of memo. of inspection of place of recovery and arrest at Ex.5-B, PW-02 SIP Sikander Ali at Exs.6, he produced Copy of FIR at Ex. 6-A, attested copy of roznamcha entries Nos.18,19 and 20 (two pages) at Ex.6-B, ballistic expert report at Ex.6-C. Thereafter, learned DDPP for State closed side of prosecution evidence. 6. Statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C was recorded at Ex.18, wherein he denied prosecution allegations, professed innocence. He did not examine himself on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He produced two photographs of "Vsh" News Jacobabad which show that some armed persons fired in Anaj Mandi in which one Saith Domki has been murdered, and he also examined defense witness namely LPC Feroz Gul, but he only brought some original entries and documents, as per his evidence, he stated in his cross that he has been posted at PS City Jacobabad for last 9 months. Thereafter, learned defense counsel closed the side of defense evidence,vide statement at Ex.20. Accused professed innocence and prayed for justice. Learned Trial Court after hearing the Prosecution and Defense convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer RI for Life and pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000 to Legal Heirs of deceased, in default of payment to further suffer SI for One Years for the charge of offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. The Appellant was also convicted for the charge of an offence under sections 23(i)(a) and 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 to suffer RI for Ten years and pay fine of Rs. 50,000, failure thereof to pay fine to suffer SI for one year more. 7. Mr. Sadam Hussain Kalhoro, Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. There are glaring contradictions and improvements in the prosecution story. He contended that the incident has taken place during day time at 12:00 noon in a busy place over bus stand in Jacobabad City but none from the public has been cited as witness. The medical evidence is at variance to the ocular furnished through FIR and statement of the prosecution witnesses. The recovery of pistol has not established as both the witnesses of recovery have contradicted each other on material points. The witnesses in the case are set up and interested and the motive as alleged has not been proved. He placed reliance upon the case of Amin Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 323), Safdar and 3 others v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1870), Qurban Ali v. The State (2024 PCr.LJ 1601), Shakeel Ahmed Memon v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 73) and Afaq Ahmed v. The State (2020 YLR 676). He prayed for acquittal of the appellant/convict. 8. Mr. Muhammad Noonari Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh assisted by M/s. Nihal Khan and Saeed Ahmed DashtiLearned Counsel for the Complainant contended that the incident is day time, the parties are known to each other being relatives, question of misidentification or wrong identification of the accused does not arise, the accused has been assigned the specific role of causing fire arm injury over the chest of the deceased which finds support from medical and ocular account. The motive stands established and the pistol used in the commission of crime was recovered from the possession of accused which was sent for forensic analysis and pistol was matched with the crime empties secured from the place of incident. They prayed for maintaining the conviction and sentence. 9. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties, examined evidence and perused material on record with their able assistance. MOTIVE 10. Per prosecution story motive behind the commission of murder of deceased Saith Ali was dispute over landed property. The Prosecution witnesses in the case are brothers of deceased Saith Ali, in their evidence recorded before Trial Court Complainant PW 2 Qurban Ali deposed that the disputed land was agricultural and situated in Chhatt near Naari in Baluchistan Province and the said land was cultivable on rain water. PW 3 Seengar Ali deposed that disputed land was a plot of 5000 square feet situated in Dera Murad Jamali Baluchistan. This contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses being real brothers is material in nature, as the witnesses failed to mention the particular location of the land, as such an inference can be drawn that there existed no dispute over lands between deceased and accused party. Even to the admission of both the witnesses that no any case of civil nature was lodged against the accused persons. Even the title of lands or plot was not brought on recordof Trial Court to establish that land or plot actually belonged to deceased on which the dispute was going on between the parties. No any witness from the place where the alleged land is situated, was examined to lend support to the prosecution claim and to establish the motive that prompted the accused to assassinate the brother of complainant. The motive of the case remained shrouded in mystery and could not be established by the prosecution, to believe that deceased was done to death for an enmity on lands. 11. In the Case of Tariq Mehmood v. The State, reported in 2025 SCMR 780 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan extended the benefit of doubt in favor of accused when prosecution failed to prove motive. Excerpts from the judgment are reproduced below. 11. The most crucial aspect of the case, in our view, being that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive in the instant matter. It has nowhere been stated as to what prompted the accused to kill the two brothers as neither was there any enmity alleged to be between the parties nor there was any report with regard to any scuffle which took place between them prior to the incident. 12. In light of the above observations, we are of the view that the instant matter is shrouded with doubts and in such eventuality, it would be legally and factually justified not to confirm the death sentence awarded by the two Courts below. Hence, in view of the above facts and depositions of the PWs, this appears to be a fit case of acquittal on the ground of extending benefit of doubt to the said accused. OCCULAR ACCOUNT 12. It is the case of the prosecution that incident occurred in the heart of city Jacobabad over a bus stop, wherefrom the transport plied between different parts of Country to and from Jacobabad. Place of incident is situated near Anaj Mandi where shops and hotels were located and were open at the time of the incident. The complainant as per prosecution story has deposed in the Court that incident occurred in his presence and he identified the perpetrators of the crime as Bakhtiar Ali (Appellant) and Bilawal who came there at about 12:00 Noon on 08.05.2021 and fired upon deceased with pistol upon the instigation of Mazari domki. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to injuries in the way. He informed the police about the incident promptlyand police party from Police Station City Jacobabad reached the hospital, inspected dead body, inspected place of incident and after post mortem handed over the dead body to the Complainant. It is a matter of record that Complainant and witnesses remained with the police party for about more than 3 hours but they did not record the facts of incidents to the police and turned up to record FIR on next day viz. 09.05.2021.In reply to a question PW 5 ASI Ghulam Murtaza deposed that he asked the complainant to record FIR but he refused and said that he will lodge the FIR later on after consultation. The FIR of the incident was recorded on 09.05.2021 at about 1500 hours with a delay of about 27 hours same also remained unexplained as per record police reached at the hospital just within 10 minutes of the incident, Complainant party remained with police party until the dead body was delivered for burial, during the intervening period, the police recorded at least 05 inspection memos. but in none of the inspection memos. the details of incident were given. The Complainant has claimed enmity with Mazari Domki but the evidence of PW 6 Dr. Bilal Ahmed tells a different story, he deposed that the dead body was brought to hospital by Qurban Ali and Razi Khan son of Mazari Domki. Question arises that had the accused Mazari Domki and his brothers Bakhtiar Ali and Bilawal committed murder, why son of Mazari Domki would have been present at the place of incident and removed the dead body to hospital. The inference can be drawn that the eye-witnesses were not present at the place of incident when this incident occurred and appeared at police station later and recorded the FIR. 13. In the case of Muhammad Jahangir reported in 2024 SCMR 1741 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold as under: 15. Apart from dishonest improvements in the version of complainant, perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged after an unexplainable delay of 3 hours despite the fact that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 km. The time of occurrence is around 05:00/05:30 pm and the matter is reported at 08:30 p.m. The complainant had a bike that he used to go to the police station. This delay has not been encountered through plausible explanation by the prosecution. 16. Dr. Sadia Habib (PW-7) furnished the medical evidence in the present case. According to the prosecution version Muhammad Iqbal constable took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, the last worn clothes were handed over to him by the doctor and he produced those articles before the I.O. As per the post-mortem report, it was Mushtaq Muhammad constable who received the dead body and other articles from the doctor. It casts doubt on the post-mortem report and raises the question that who actually received the aforementioned articles once the post-mortem was done. 17. Thus, the minute scrutiny of the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, the eye-witnesses, makes their presence at the spot highly doubtful. 18. Qua medical evidence, it corroborates the version of the complainant as stated in the FIR but the same is of no assistance in this case as medical evidence by its nature and character cannot recognize a culprit in case of an un-witnessed incident. The eye-witness account relied upon by the prosecution is unreliable and untrustworthy as observed above, therefore, the petitioner's conviction cannot sustain on the basis of medical evidence alone. 14. The ocular account as furnished by Prosecution before Learned Trial Court was in variance to Medico Legal Report regarding injuries to the deceased. The witnesses PW 2 Qurban Ali and PW 3 Seengar Ali deposed that the deceased sustained four injuries, while per statement of PW 6 Dr. Bilal Ahmed deceased sustained 5 injuries which were through and through. Witnesses PW 2 Qurban Ali and PW 3 Seengar Ali deposed that deceased died while in the way to Hospital, but per deposition of PW 6 Dr. Bilal Ahmed deceased died instantaneously. PW5 ASI Ghulam Murtaza who conducted the initial investigation, he prepared inquest report in hospital, prepared memo. of inspection of injuries, secured lost worn clothes of deceased, handed over the dead body to Complainant, visited place of incident and prepared inspection memo. on the very day in the company of complainant and witness through a Roznamcha Entry 9-A which he produced before Learned Trial Court while recording his evidence to establish that he departed from the police station soon after the incident. Page number 02 of Roznamcha entry book produced by this witness evidenced all entries in the book on the relevant day start from entry Nos. 4 to 9, there is no other entry having A , B excepting this entry, which creates doubt on the movement of PW 5 ASI Ghulam Murtaza from police station and recording of the memos. in presence and company of complainant party, it appears that all the memos. were managed at police station. PW 8 SIO Sikandar Ali denied of existence of such in entry in police record. He deposed that at police station roznamcha entries are recorded in acceding order of 1,2,3 and not by 1A, 1B. he deposed that there was no any entry 9 - A available in police station or shown to him by PW 5 ASI Ghulam Murtaza.This piece of evidence rendered by PW8 SIO Sikandar Ali belied the movement and departure of PW 5 ASI Ghulam Murtaza from Police Station to the place of incident and hospital. The inspection memo. of place of incident reflected that incident occurred in front of the shop of one Sikandar Ali Domki but he was not examined during investigation. Even none from the public was examined by the Investigation Office

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 173, 190 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 114, 148 & 149---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Quashing of order---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Accused-applicants were aggrieved of order passed by Judicial Magistrate through which he did not agree with the findings of Investigating Off icer declaring them innocent and placing their names in column No. 2 of the challan-sheet---Validity---Admittedly opinion of Investigating Officer was not binding upon the Courts as the same was ipse dixit and the Magistrate was competent to agree or disagree with the opinion of police while exercising his administrative jurisdiction on a report submitted before him within the meaning of Ss.170 & 173, Cr.P.C.---Defence plea of the applicants regarding excluding them from commission of offence was no bar for conducting trial and it was a pure prerogative jurisdiction of Trial Court to give weight of evidence as led by both sides---Officer in charge must use such powers not in mechanical manner and must exercise the same with care and caution to satisfy himself that to release on bail would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution as in instant matter the findings of Investigating Officer might have caused prejudice and even the complainant himself disowned version of Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer exercised his powers without following the law as prescribed under Rule 26.21 of Police R. 1934, that there was a bar to release the accused who were involved in offence which were punishable with death or transportation for life and that FIR pertained to S.302 P.P.C and its punishment was death and/or imprisonment for life---Record reflected that applicants were nominated in commission of offence with their specific role with corroborating piece of evidence by supporting witnesses as well as medical evidence---So far as the independent witnesses were concerned, the credibility of those witnesses must be carried and given weight by the Trial Court at the time of trial as the applicants had remedy to produce them in their evidence at the time of recording their statements---Criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed being devoid of any legal substance. Muhammad Rizwan v. The State and others 2018 MLD 410; Khalida Bibi v. Nadeem Baig PLD 2009 SC 440; Anwar Shamim and another v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791 and Naeem Akhtar and another v. Learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate and 5 others 2018 MLD 1173 ref. PLD 2009 SC 440 rel. Mohammad Ali Naper for Applicant. Mohammad Ali Dayo for the Complainant. Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Addl. P.G Sindh for the State.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(v), 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in connection with FIR No. 31/22, registered at Police Station Jarwar, District Ghotki. The complainant alleged that on 16 July 2022, the petitioners, along with co-accused, ambushed the complainant's relatives, resulting in the death of one Gul Hassan and serious injuries to another individual. The petitioners claimed an alibi, asserting they were in Karachi at the time of the incident. Based on available evidence, including call data records and CCTV footage, the petitioners were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, indicating insufficient evidence against them. However, after judicial review, the case proceeded against all accused, including the petitioners, leading to their petition for pre-arrest bail. -----Issues: 1- Was the petitioners’ alibi, supported by evidence, sufficient to justify their pre-arrest bail under the law? ----2- Did the police act with malafide intent in seeking the petitioners' arrest, despite their inclusion in Column No. 2 of the challan? ----3- Did the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail based on the principle of further inquiry? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court found that the petitioners presented a credible alibi, supported by call data records, CCTV footage, and other evidence, showing they were in Karachi at the time of the alleged crime. Furthermore, the police had placed the petitioners in Column No. 2 of the challan due to insufficient evidence, and the trial court had already commenced proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioners faced the threat of arrest for no justifiable reason and that the trial would determine their guilt or innocence. Since the investigation was complete, and no further inquiry was required regarding the petitioners, their continued harassment would be unjustified. The case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and pre-arrest bail could not be withheld as mere punishment. The Court referenced several precedents where bail was granted in similar circumstances. -----Citations/Precedents: Salman Mushtaq v. The State, 2024 SCMR 14 Ahtisham Ali v. The State, 2023 SCMR 975 Fahad Hussain v. The State, 2023 SCMR 364 Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State, 2020 SCMR 249 Muhammad Sadiq v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1394 Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique, PLD 2009 SC 427

Summary: Bail granted --- Background: The appellant was implicated under sections 11/16 of the ZHA, 494/114, and 34 of the APC, resulting in his arrest. After being denied bail by the Tehsil Court and the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction in Dhirkot, the appellant's revision petition was also dismissed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. The appellant appealed this decision. ----Issues: Whether the lower courts exercised proper judicial discretion in denying bail to the appellant. Whether the allegations against the appellant justified continued detention. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the appellant's continued detention was unnecessary as the investigation had concluded and the nature of the allegations did not justify further incarceration. The Court emphasized the principle that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible. It found that there was a conflict in the narratives regarding whether the complainant's wife had willingly contracted a Nikkah with the appellant or was enticed. This ambiguity, coupled with the lack of substantial evidence against the appellant, necessitated his release on bail. The appellant was granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with a surety of the same amount. The judgment of the High Court was set aside. -----Citations/Precedents" Muhammad Fareed vs. The State and another [2019 SCR 874] Zahid Mehmood vs. The State and others [2022 SCR 1362] Muhammad Aslam vs. The State [2023 SCMR 2056] Muhammad Hanif vs. The State [2023 SCMR 2016]

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a criminal appeal seeking post-arrest bail following their arrest under FIR No. 24 of 2023 on February 14, 2023, for allegedly committing murder by causing firearm injuries, resulting in the death of an individual and injuries to a passerby. The case included charges under Sections 302, 324, 114, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) along with Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated, and that the eyewitnesses did not directly link them to the act of firing. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners were implicated based on substantive evidence or if their connection to the crime remains doubtful. -----2- Whether, given the lack of direct evidence, the petitioners’ case falls under “further inquiry” as defined under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court granted bail, noting that there was only a general allegation against the petitioners in the FIR without specific attribution of injury to any of them. The purported eyewitnesses did not see the petitioners shooting but rather observed them running away from the scene. Additionally, the injured passerby did not identify the petitioners as the assailants. The court determined that the available evidence was inconclusive, placing the case within the realm of “further inquiry.” Given that the petitioners were no longer required for further investigation, continued detention would serve no constructive purpose. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 497, Cr.P.C. (Prohibitory clause and criteria for further inquiry)

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a declaratory suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Muzaffarabad, which was dismissed on 26.12.2011 for want of prosecution and non-compliance with a court order. The petitioners filed a review petition under Section 114 Order 47 CPC, which was dismissed on 11.06.2016. Subsequently, they filed a revision petition before the District Judge Muzaffarabad on 02.07.2016, which was also dismissed on 09.06.2017. The petitioners then filed a writ petition to challenge the decisions of both the lower courts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's simultaneous dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with a court order was legally valid. 2- Whether the review petition was competent despite being filed after the prescribed period of limitation. 3- Whether the orders of the lower courts violated legal principles or exceeded their jurisdiction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Simultaneous Dismissal for Prosecution and Non-Compliance: The court found that the trial court's dismissal of the suit for both want of prosecution and non-compliance with a court order was not legally justified. According to Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, if a party fails to produce evidence or comply with court orders, the court may proceed to decide the suit forthwith. However, the dismissal for want of prosecution is governed by Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, which deals with a different scenario. Imposing two penalties simultaneously was deemed excessive and not warranted by law. --Competence of the Review Petition: The court acknowledged that the review petition was filed after a significant delay, but emphasized that the essence of justice requires that interlocutory orders can be reviewed if justice so demands. The review application, though barred by time, could be treated as one under Section 151 CPC. --Violation of Legal Principles or Jurisdiction: The court found that the lower courts' orders violated legal norms and the principles of justice by imposing dual penalties on the petitioners. The proper course of action should have been to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, given the plaintiffs' absence on the relevant date. The writ petition was accepted. The judgments passed by the District Judge and the Civil Judge were set aside. The basic order passed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC was treated as if it were passed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. The review application was treated as an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for the restoration of the case. The case was remanded to the court of first instance to decide the matter expeditiously within two months. ----Citations/Precedents: Order XVII Rule 3 CPC Order 9 Rule 8 CPC Order 9 Rule 9 CPC Section 114 Order 47 CPC Section 151 CPC 2003 YLR 1579 This decision emphasized the necessity of adhering to the correct legal provisions and ensuring that justice is served by allowing cases to be decided on their merits rather than through procedural penalties.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Vicarious liability---Two versions of the incident---Self-defense--- Petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case involving multiple charges, including murder and grievous injuries. FIR alleged that petitioners attacked the complainant party, causing injuries and fatalities. However, medical reports revealed injuries sustained by petitioners themselves, which were suppressed by the prosecution. Court observed that the injuries on petitioners supported their plea of self-defense, rendering it a case of two versions. Vicarious liability under S. 34, P.P.C., was held inapplicable, as every accused must be held responsible for their individual actions. Furthermore, no recovery was made from some of the petitioners, and the FIR lacked clarity on the presence of specific weapons. Petitioners had been in custody for a considerable period and were no longer required for investigation. Post-arrest bail was granted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-A, 341, 109, 114, 147, 148---Multiple injuries---Nature of injuries not determined---Deficiency in medico-legal examination--- During the course of arguments, it was revealed that medico-legal certificates issued by doctors failed to classify injuries under specific sections of S. 337-F of the P.P.C., such as Ghayr-Jaifah Mutalahimah (337-F(iii)), Ghayr-Jaifah Mudihah (337-F(iv)), Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah (337-F(v)), and Ghayr-Jaifah Munaqqillah (337-F(vi)). Doctors admitted lack of training and absence of standard procedures in Gilgit-Baltistan hospitals for classifying injury types. Court directed the Secretary Health Gilgit-Baltistan to appear in person and provide an explanation, along with steps to rectify the deficiency. (c) Administration of Justice--- ----Medical evidence---Inadequate medico-legal training---Role of state institutions--- Court highlighted the alarming deficiency in medico-legal practices in Gilgit-Baltistan government hospitals. Doctors were unable to properly classify the nature of injuries due to insufficient training and absence of protocols. The Court directed the Secretary Health Gilgit-Baltistan to ensure proper mechanisms and training for medico-legal officers to avoid recurrence of such lapses. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle of individual liability--- In cases where two distinct versions of an incident exist, each accused must be held responsible for their individual acts. Petitioners presented injuries sustained during the incident as evidence of self-defense. Court held that the prosecution's suppression of these injuries weakened its case, entitling petitioners to the benefit of doubt. ----- Cited Provisions: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S. 497) Penal Code, 1860 (Ss. 302, 324, 337-A, 341, 109, 114, 147, 148) ----- Disposition: Criminal appeal accepted. Petitioners admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of PKR 200,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. Observations regarding deficiencies in medico-legal procedures directed to Secretary Health, Gilgit-Baltistan, for remedial action.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 320, 107 & 114---Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Ss. 3 & 5---Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving--- Abetment--- Scope--- Abettor present when offence is committed---Prohibition on driving without licence---Scope---Accused, while driving a water tanker, hit an unknown lady who received injuries and expired on the spot---Driving licence of accused was found to be fake and bogus---Investigating Officer of the case was required to have included the owner of the vehicle in investigation as co-accused for allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence or whose licence was not genuine---Owner of the vehicle was an abettor in terms of S.107, P.P.C. and his case fell under S.114, P.P.C.---Investigating Officer was directed to take action against owner of the vehicle and the prosecution was directed to expeditiously complete the trial against the owner as co-accused---Appeal was adjourned pending action against the owner of the vehicle. Atta Muhammad v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1648 rel.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) – Sections 302(b), 109, 114, 34: Conviction for murder – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal –– Appellant convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death by the trial court –– Prosecution case based on the alleged extramarital affair of the deceased’s wife with the appellant, leading to a conspiracy to murder the deceased –– Trial court acquitted co-accused, including the wife of the deceased, for lack of evidence –– Prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses, both related to the deceased, who failed to establish their presence at the time of the incident –– Their testimonies were riddled with inconsistencies, including delayed FIR registration, delayed postmortem, and failure to provide material details –– Held, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. [Rehmat Ullah & Others v. The State & Others (2024 SCMR 1782) relied upon.] (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) – Section 103: Recovery of weapon – No evidentiary value –– Recovery of 30-bore pistol allegedly used in the commission of the crime was made from an open space accessible to all –– Witnesses to the recovery were related to the deceased –– No corroborative forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime scene –– Held, recovery of weapon in such circumstances was unreliable and could not be used as corroborative evidence against the appellant. [Arshad Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 564) relied upon.] (c) Delay in FIR and postmortem – Effect: Delay in lodging FIR and conducting postmortem creates doubts in prosecution case –– The occurrence took place at 1:40 p.m., but FIR was lodged at 4:45 p.m. with no explanation for the delay –– Postmortem conducted after 9 hours and 50 minutes without justification –– Delay suggests possibility of afterthought and deliberation –– Held, unexplained delay in setting the law into motion casts doubt on the prosecution's version. [Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali & Others (PLD 2003 SC 14) followed.] (d) Supplementary statement – Nomination of accused through supplementary statement – Effect: Accused not named in FIR – Subsequent nomination raises doubts –– Appellant was not initially nominated in the FIR but was implicated later through a supplementary statement –– Complainant alleged mental shock as the reason for omitting the name of the accused initially, but no medical evidence was produced to support this claim –– Courts have disapproved of afterthought supplementary statements used to falsely implicate an accused –– Held, supplementary statements, unless corroborated by strong independent evidence, have little evidentiary value. [Khalid Javed v. The State (2003 SCMR 1419), Akhtar Ali & Others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) followed.] (e) Medical evidence – Contradiction with ocular evidence: Contradiction between eyewitness account and forensic evidence – Impact –– Prosecution eyewitnesses claimed that the accused fired from a distance of 2 karams (approximately 12 feet) –– However, medical examination showed burnt margins around the entry wounds, indicating that shots were fired from a much closer range (within 2 feet) –– Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence raised serious doubts about the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses –– Held, ocular testimony must align with medical evidence; contradictions render the prosecution case doubtful. [Riasat Ali & Fakhar Zaman v. The State & Another (2024 SCMR 1224) relied upon.] (f) Motive – Failure to prove – Effect: Prosecution must suffer if motive is alleged but not proven –– Prosecution claimed the deceased’s wife had illicit relations with the accused, but no concrete evidence was produced to substantiate this assertion –– Extra-judicial confession attributed to the co-accused (since acquitted) was not supported by any independent witness –– Investigation revealed that both the deceased and the accused were living abroad and had returned shortly before the incident –– Held, motive was not proved, and failure to prove motive weakens the prosecution case. [Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State & Another (2022 SCMR 1567), Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449) followed.] ----Disposition: Criminal appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Murder Reference answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The applicants, four individuals, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.165/2022, registered at Police Station Mehar, involving charges under sections 440, 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Their initial request for bail was denied by the I-Additional Session Judge, Mehar, on 01.07.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of the charges against them. 2- Whether the applicants fall within the exceptions that would justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The offenses for which the applicants are charged carry punishments of less than ten years, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The general principle is that granting bail in such cases is the rule, and refusal is the exception. This principle is supported by several precedents from the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions meriting denial of bail applied to the applicants. The exceptions include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or repeating the offense. There was no material evidence presented to substantiate these grounds. The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The decision should be based tentatively on the material available on record. The court allowed the bail application, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants on the same terms and conditions. The complainant was given the liberty to seek cancellation of the bail upon receipt of the final medical certificate if it indicated offenses carrying capital punishment. ----Citations/Precedents: Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488) Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc (2021 SCMR 822) Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)