Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 376 & 496-B---Rape versus fornication (zina with consent)---Scope and distinction---Petitioner was convicted by Trial Court under S.376 PPC and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with compensation---High Court upheld conviction---Supreme Court examined whether allegation constituted rape or consensual illicit intercourse---Delay of about seven months in lodging FIR without plausible explanation---Alleged occurrence near residential area but no hue and cry raised---No resistance offered by complainant---No marks of violence found on body---Clothes of complainant neither torn nor produced---Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation of forcible rape---Conduct of complainant in remaining silent for long period after alleged occurrence found unnatural---Held, prosecution failed to prove element of force or compulsion necessary to constitute offence of rape under S.376 PPC---Evidence, however, established commission of illicit sexual intercourse---Case held to be one of fornication (zina with consent) punishable under S.496-B PPC and not rape. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 496-B---Fornication---Proof---Evidence of complainant regarding sexual intercourse remained unshaken and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence supported prosecution to extent of sexual intercourse---Held, prosecution proved offence of fornication beyond reasonable doubt against accused. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 238(2)---Conviction for minor offence---Charge framed for major offence of rape---Evidence disclosed commission of minor offence of fornication---Held, accused could be convicted for minor offence though not specifically charged for same---Principle affirmed that conviction for minor offence is permissible where facts establish such offence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 103---Recovery proceedings---Alleged recovery of pistol on pointation of accused from residential house---No independent witness of locality associated---Recovery held violative of mandatory provisions of S.103 Cr.P.C. and thus unreliable. (e) Criminal trial ----Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Unexplained delay of seven months in reporting alleged rape---Held, such delay, in circumstances of case, seriously impaired credibility of prosecution version. (f) Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006 ----Substitution of offences---Offence of zina with consent under S.10(2) of Ordinance substituted by offence of fornication under S.496-B PPC---Principles laid down in earlier cases under Hudood laws held applicable. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Sharif v. The State 2006 SCMR 1170 • Ijaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 141 • Amir Muhammad v. The State 2007 SCMR 452 • Muhammad Shabbir v. The State 1992 SCMR 2063 Disposition: By majority of 2:1, Criminal Petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentence of petitioner under S.376 PPC were set aside and petitioner was acquitted of charge of rape; petitioner was instead convicted under S.496-B PPC and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default two months’ simple imprisonment. (Justice Salahuddin Panhwar dissenting; leave refused by dissent).

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Principles reiterated: Where prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, crucial elements including motive, last seen evidence, and recoveries failed to meet the evidentiary threshold. No independent corroboration was offered for last seen testimony, and the time of death was not medically established to connect it with the alleged departure of the deceased. —Held: Benefit of doubt is to be extended where circumstantial evidence is fractured. [Cited: PLD 2019 SC 64 (Asia Bibi); 1995 SCMR 1345 (Tariq Pervaiz); PLD 2002 SC 1048 (Ayub Masih)] (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Article 40 – Scope and evidentiary limits The Court comprehensively examined Article 40 of QSO, distinguishing between "discovery" and mere "recovery". It reaffirmed that only that portion of custodial disclosure leading directly to the discovery of a new fact is admissible. Procedural lapses—such as absence of departure entries, unsigned statements, and lack of attestation by independent witnesses—render the recoveries unreliable. —Held: The safeguards under Article 40 QSO and procedural law must be strictly followed to render evidence admissible. [Cited: 2021 SCMR 873 (Ahmed Omar Sheikh); 2024 SCMR 1773 (Zafar Ali Abbasi); 1995 SCMR 1293 (Yaqub Shah)] (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 103, 161, 173 – Investigative shortcomings: The Court condemned systemic investigative failures, including unsigned disclosure statements, absence of independent mashirs, and lack of prompt documentation. It noted that such practices undermine due process and erode public trust in the justice system. —Direction issued: IGs of Police and Prosecutor Generals across provinces instructed to implement mandatory procedural safeguards for custodial recoveries and ensure transparency in investigation. —Legislative recommendation: Statutory amendments urged to codify requirements for admissible custodial disclosures. (d) Last seen evidence – Requirement for corroboration – Delay in reporting: The alleged last seen testimony of close relatives (father and maternal uncle) lacked corroboration. There was also unexplained delay in reporting and no scientific determination of time of death to match the last seen timeline. —Held: In absence of independent corroboration, such evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. [Cited: PLD 2018 SC 813 (Muhammad Abid); 2017 SCMR 2026 (Fayyaz Ahmad); 2007 SCMR 486 (Akbar Ali)] (e) Appeal against acquittal – Principle of reinforced presumption of innocence: Appeal challenging acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. The Court reiterated that findings of acquittal are afforded greater weight and cannot be reversed unless perverse or contrary to law. [Cited: 2024 SCMR 51 (Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad)] ----Disposition: Criminal Petition No. 532 of 2018 converted into appeal and allowed; conviction of Zunair Younas set aside; acquitted. Criminal Petition No. 444-L of 2018 (seeking enhancement of sentence) dismissed as infructuous. Criminal Petition No. 445-L of 2018 (challenging acquittal of co-accused) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 9(c)–––Conviction–––Appreciation of evidence–––Contradiction in prosecution version regarding recovery–––Appellant was convicted for possession of 8 kg Heroin, whereas co-accused was acquitted–––Contradiction between FIR/complaint and recovery memo regarding the location and manner of recovery–––Recovery memo (Ex.PC) stated all 8 packets recovered from trunk of vehicle driven by appellant; whereas FIR and complaint (Ex.PA & Ex.PB) stated 2 packets were recovered from co-accused’s clothing–––Such material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the entire recovery–––Prosecution failed to establish safe custody of narcotics or to associate any private witnesses in the recovery, despite availability–––Investigating Officer was dismissed from service for misconduct, further undermining credibility of investigation–––Held, in narcotics cases, utmost transparency in recovery and chain of custody is essential–––Benefit of doubt given to accused–––Appeal allowed–––Conviction and sentence set aside–––Appellant acquitted. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Samiullah v. The State, 2022 SCMR 998 • Khial Muhammad v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1490 • Muhammad Riaz v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1839 • Subha Sadiq v. The State, 2025 SCMR 50 (b) Criminal trial: –––Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus–––Applicability–––Contradictory prosecution evidence–––When statements of prosecution witnesses contain major discrepancies regarding material facts, entire testimony becomes unreliable–––In the instant case, serious divergence existed between the initial complaint and recovery memo as to from whom and where the contraband was allegedly recovered–––Held, once key parts of the prosecution narrative are proven false, the rest cannot be safely relied upon–––Principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” applied–––Accused entitled to acquittal. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 157, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of private witnesses–––Lack of spot investigation–––Statements of accused–––Section 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with–––No credible explanation given for non-inclusion of public witnesses at the time of search and recovery–––Section 157(1), Cr.P.C. mandates spot-based investigation, which appeared missing in the case–––Benefit of doubt arising from violation of legal procedure extended to accused–––Further, Appellant’s statement under S.342 Cr.P.C. was not properly rebutted–––Acquittal upheld. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 32–––Confiscation of vehicle–––Notice to owner–––Failure to comply with mandatory procedure–––Vehicle used in commission of offence was ordered to be confiscated by Trial Court without serving notice to registered owner or verifying ownership–––Held, forfeiture without notice violates mandatory requirements of S.32 CNSA–––Court directed that vehicle shall remain intact until expiry of limitation for appeal or revision, and may only be disposed of in accordance with law after proper notice and determination of ownership.

Summary: (a) Criminal Trial – Explosive Substances Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, Arms Ordinance – Requirements of Safe Custody, Recovery and Chain of Custody – Non-Production of Case Property – Effect Failure of the prosecution to produce critical physical evidence, such as explosives, detonators, weapons, and other incriminating items allegedly recovered from the accused, vitiated the entire prosecution case. Non-production and non-exhibition of case property in court created fatal gaps in the chain of custody, drawing adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Reliance placed on Gul Dast Khan v. The State (2009 SCMR 431), Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR 577), and Ahmed Ali v. State (2023 SCMR 781). (b) Electronic Evidence – Video from Mobile Phone – Requirements for Admissibility – Role of Forensic Expert – Standard of Proof: Video evidence allegedly recovered from a mobile phone was held inadmissible due to lack of proper forensic examination, sealing, and authentication. Requirements under Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) were not fulfilled. Prosecution failed to produce the person who made or handled the video, and the device was not sealed or forensically verified, undermining evidentiary value. (c) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 7 – Mandatory Requirement of Sanction from Government – Failure to Obtain – Effect: No sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act was obtained from the competent authority before prosecution. This was a jurisdictional defect rendering the proceedings and conviction under Sections 4 and 5 ESA void ab initio. Reliance placed on Abdul Aziz @ Sadam v. The State (2023 YLR 1821 [Balochistan]). (d) Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B PPC – Ingredients – Proof of Common Intention – Requirement of Agreement: Prosecution failed to prove any agreement or meeting of minds between appellants necessary to establish conspiracy under Section 120-B PPC. No independent corroboration or electronic evidence was provided to link the appellants to each other or to any proscribed organization. (e) Anti-Terrorism Act – Prosecution under ATA & General Law – Requirement for Separate Charges and Sentences: Trial court erred by merging charges under Anti-Terrorism Act and general penal statutes in single sentencing phrases. Convictions must be separately recorded under each statutory provision. Reliance placed on Akhtar Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2017 Peshawar 55). (f) Enforced Disappearance – Defense of Abduction by State Agencies – Burden on Prosecution – FIR for Missing Person – Failure to Refute Defense: Appellants’ claim of abduction by law enforcement agencies was corroborated by FIR No. 1024/2022, lodged prior to the alleged recovery. Prosecution failed to rebut this defense or provide credible explanation for the delay or absence of due process under Articles 9, 10, and 14 of the Constitution. Burden of disproving enforced disappearance was not discharged, and adverse inference was drawn. (g) Criminal Procedure – Section 103 Cr.P.C. – Failure to Associate Independent Witnesses – Recovery at Public Place – Effect: Despite alleged recovery from a public place and the presence of bystanders, no private witness was associated with recovery proceedings. This omission raised serious doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case and undermined the credibility of police witnesses. (h) Forensic Chain of Custody – Delay in Sending Samples – Absence of Mallkhana Registers – Vitiation of NFSA Report: Explosive samples were sent to NFSA after an unexplained delay of six days. Mallkhana Register No. 19 and Roznamcha entries were not produced. Such lapses cast doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the NFSA report, rendering it unreliable. -----Disposition: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Judgment also directed Inspector General Police, Islamabad, to take cognizance of CTD officials' conduct and recommended that enforced disappearance be declared a distinct criminal offence.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––Ss. 9(c), 15 & 29–––Possession of narcotics–––Recovery of large quantity–––Presumption under S.29–––Driver of vehicle–––Appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle carrying 13.2 kg of opium and 4.8 kg of charas hidden in a secret cavity–––Prosecution established continuous chain of custody from recovery to chemical analysis through unimpeached testimony of PW.2 and PW.3–––Chemical Examiner’s reports confirmed presence of narcotics and were found to be in compliance with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001–––Held, driver of vehicle is presumed to be in possession and knowledge of narcotics unless rebutted–––Appellant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut presumption or establish false implication–––Appeal dismissed–––Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with fine upheld. Cited Cases: • Faisal Shahzad v. The State, 2022 SCMR 905 • Ajab Khan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 317 • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Sherzada v. The State, 1993 SCMR 149 • Nadir Khan v. The State, 1988 SCMR 1899 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 161, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of public witnesses–––Effect–––Appellant argued that no private person was made witness to the recovery, violating S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Held, S.25 of CNSA explicitly excludes the application of S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Police witnesses are competent and their testimony cannot be discarded merely due to official status–––Statements of PWs remained consistent on material points and withstood cross-examination–––No mala fides or animosity alleged against prosecution witnesses–––Benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. was rightly extended by Trial Court. Cited Cases: • Zaffar v. The State, 2008 SCMR 1254 • State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad, 2017 SCMR 283 • Salah-ud-Din v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1962 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): –––Burden of proof–––Presumption of possession–––Appellant failed to discharge burden under S.29 of CNSA–––Vehicle was in appellant’s control and narcotics were hidden in a concealed cavity–––Held, items recovered from a vehicle in an accused’s control are presumed to be in his possession and knowledge–––Appellant’s denial was not substantiated with any credible evidence–––Mere procedural objections do not outweigh the substantial and consistent prosecution evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Adil Ahmed v. Deputy Collector C&CE, 1991 SCMR 1951 • Rab Nawaz v. The State, PLD 1984 SC 858

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 121----Burden of proof----Presumption of innocence----Accused’s failure to explain circumstances surrounding the alleged crime does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt----Mere rejection of an accused’s plea (suicide) does not shift the burden of proof nor create an adverse presumption against him----Conviction cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. (b) Criminal trial: ----Medical evidence----Scope and limitations----Medical evidence alone cannot identify the assailant----It may confirm the nature, location, and cause of injuries but cannot establish the identity of the perpetrator----In the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused, reliance solely on medical evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction----Cases relied upon: Zakir Hussain v. State (2008 SCMR 222) and Ata Muhammad v. State (1995 SCMR 599). (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Motive----Significance in criminal cases----Motive plays a crucial role in cases lacking direct evidence----Prosecution failed to establish a direct motive against the accused while co-accused, against whom a dispute was alleged, were discharged without challenge----Failure to prove motive weakens the prosecution’s case. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 103----Recovery of weapon----Recovery of alleged crime weapon from the petitioner’s room was inconsequential as it was not stained with blood, and no chemical examiner’s or serologist’s report was available----Absence of forensic evidence further diluted the prosecution’s case. (e) Administration of justice: ----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal in cases of reasonable doubt----Even a single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case is sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal----No need for multiple doubts; any flaw in the prosecution’s case that pricks judicial conscience must favor the accused----Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345). -----Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. -----Cited Cases: Zakir Hussain v. State (2008 SCMR 222) Ata Muhammad v. State (1995 SCMR 599) Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Trial—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof ---- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A ---- An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt through legally admissible, confidence-inspiring, and reliable evidence. Any weakness in the defense does not benefit the prosecution. Failure to establish the case beyond doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. (Rel. 2009 SCMR 230, 2024 SCMR 1579, PLD 1993 SC 251) (b) Ocular Testimony—Unreliable and Interested Witnesses ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 17 & 129 ---- The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses who were close relatives of the deceased, rendering their testimony interested and requiring corroboration. Contradictions in their statements regarding the exact location of the incident, the movement of the deceased, and the presence of the accused weakened their credibility. The unnatural conduct of witnesses in failing to prevent the attack further cast doubt on their version of events. (Rel. 2020 SCMR 319, 2024 SCMR 1579) (c) Nighttime Incident—Failure to Establish Proper Identification ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The occurrence took place at night, yet the FIR did not mention any source of light at the crime scene. In such circumstances, the possibility of mistaken identity of the accused cannot be ruled out. The absence of independent evidence confirming identification further weakened the prosecution’s case. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (d) Motive—Failure to Prove—Effect ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The prosecution alleged an exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused as the motive for the murder. However, no independent witnesses were produced to establish this motive. The investigating officer also admitted that no witnesses were examined in support of the motive. Since motive is a supporting factor, its absence significantly weakened the prosecution's case. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (e) Recovery of Weapon—Violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C.—Negative Forensic Report ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---- The alleged recovery of a 12-bore repeater gun was made in the absence of independent witnesses and in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the forensic report did not link the weapon to the crime, rendering the recovery inconsequential. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 898, 2024 SCMR 1741) (f) Medical Evidence—Corroborative Value—Failure to Link Accused ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- Medical evidence can corroborate the manner and weapon used in the crime, but it cannot identify the accused. In this case, the prosecution failed to produce reliable eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the crime. Thus, the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish guilt. (Rel. PLD 1993 SC 251, PLD 1976 SC 695, 2024 SCMR 1741) (g) Unnatural Conduct of the Accused—Doubtful Prosecution Story ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The prosecution alleged that the accused had a dispute with the complainant (PW-8) but targeted the complainant's father instead. The accused did not even threaten the complainant, raising serious doubts about the real motive behind the incident. The unnatural conduct of the accused, in sparing the person he allegedly had a dispute with, suggested that the prosecution story was fabricated. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (h) Benefit of Doubt—Legal Requirement for Acquittal ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K ---- If even a single reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution’s case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. In this case, multiple serious discrepancies were found in the ocular testimony, motive, recovery, forensic evidence, and medical evidence, all of which created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version. (Rel. 2009 SCMR 230, 2024 SCMR 1579, 2024 SCMR 1741) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Amjad set aside. He was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in another case. Murder Reference answered in the negative—death sentence not confirmed. Complainant’s appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Usman dismissed for lack of merit.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 302(b), 449 & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 374 Conviction based on untrustworthy ocular evidence, defective identification, and invalid recovery—Reversal of death sentence and acquittal. Prosecution case hinged on the ocular account of PW-10 and PW-11, who claimed to be present at the time of occurrence; however, the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the scene through any credible evidence—Witnesses did not produce documentation proving their employment at the site nor was their presence confirmed through site plans prepared by the IO or draftsman—The behavior of witnesses during the occurrence was held to be unnatural, as they did not intervene or attempt to save the deceased—Such conduct was held contrary to ordinary human behavior as per Art.129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and principles laid down in Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 1373), Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315), and Shahzad Tanveer v. The State (2012 SCMR 172). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) — Arts. 22 & 129 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 161 — Identification parade—Testimony of eyewitnesses not reliable in absence of initial description or features. Appellant was not named in the FIR or initial statements; test identification parade was held without fulfilling legal safeguards—No prior description of the accused’s features was given in the FIR or statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.—Magistrate conducting the TIP failed to record date of custody or match dummy profiles—Witness admitted to having seen the accused in police custody before the parade—Such identification proceedings held unreliable in view of Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956), Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436), and State v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585). (c) Criminal trial — Recovery proceedings—Violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C.—Recovery evidence discarded. Recovery of wooden danda (P-8) held inadmissible due to non-association of independent witnesses—The recovery was effected from a location already visited by police multiple times without observing or collecting the alleged weapon—The recovered item was not blood-stained nor sent for forensic analysis—Such recovery proceedings, carried out in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 103 Cr.P.C., were excluded from consideration—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898). (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 — Motive — Unsubstantiated and weak motive not sufficient to sustain conviction. Prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to reside at the deceased’s workplace and was refused, leading to the altercation—No independent evidence presented to prove the motive or its intensity—Failure to substantiate motive weakened prosecution case—Principle followed from Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021). (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Art. 129—Medical evidence alone insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of credible ocular testimony. Although postmortem report confirmed death due to head injuries, medical evidence could not by itself identify the assailant—In absence of credible and corroborative ocular account, conviction could not be based on medical evidence alone—Guidance taken from Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) and PLD 2021 SC 600. (f) Criminal trial — Benefit of doubt—Right of the accused—Acquittal ordered. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Multiple material contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted—Appellant was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not concession—Principle reinforced through Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736). Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2023 allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted. Murder Reference No. 57 of 2023 answered in Negative—Death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: (a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order, 1979 — Arts. 3 & 4 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 103, 342, 382-B — Possession of liquor — Recovery of 54 pints of alleged wine — Failure to prove safe custody, safe transmission, and safe handling of sealed samples — Only one pint sent for chemical analysis — No representative sample taken — Remaining 53 pints not analyzed — Material contradictions among police witnesses regarding place, manner of recovery, and inspection — No independent witness associated despite busy public location — Violative of S. 103, Cr.P.C. — Chemical examiner's report held unreliable — Conviction set aside. (b) Criminal trial — Appreciation of evidence — Contradictions and inconsistencies — Scope — Police officials gave conflicting statements on direction of accused’s escape, manner of arrest, site inspection, vehicle details, and injuries sustained — No medical or physical evidence produced despite claim of petitioner falling and sustaining knee injury — Mashirnama failed to mention key details — Inconsistent, contradictory evidence undermined prosecution case — Deliberate suppression of facts and failure to follow standard procedure fatal to case. (c) Presumption of guilt — Mere lack of enmity with police not sufficient — The absence of personal motive does not remove burden on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt — Judicial reliance cannot be placed on flawed and unsupported testimony merely because witnesses are police officers — Courts must scrutinize evidence for integrity and coherence. (d) Standard of proof — Benefit of doubt — Principle — Where prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, and material contradictions and omissions are evident, benefit of doubt must be given to accused as a matter of right, not grace — Trial and appellate courts misread and failed to appreciate evidence — Conviction and sentence declared unsustainable. Rel. 2008 SCMR 1221; 2009 SCMR 230. Disposition: Criminal Revision allowed — Conviction and sentence under Art. 4 of the Hadd Order set aside — Petitioner acquitted on benefit of doubt — Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged.

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019)--- ----Ss. 32, 45 & 55---Vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest---Investigation---Indemnity---Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded penalty under clause (c) of S.32 of the Act, 2019, mainly for violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., and not providing an opportunity to the women of dwelling house to observe pardah---Trial Court, after forming a tentative opinion that the appellant had violated the S.27 as well as S.31 of the Act and was liable to punishment under S.32, had issued a show cause notice and on receipt of the reply, convicted and sentenced the appellant---Validity---Record showed that the appellant had never been put to trial nor had any evidence been recorded or he had been confronted with the pieces of evidence as required under S.342, Cr.P.C.---In this case also, the conflict between S.32 of the Act and S.55 of the Act could only be resolved by reading the two Sections together---Indemnity provided under S.55 was, therefore, to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led before the Trial Court but same could not be taken to be absolute immunity---Once the Court comes to a conclusion tentatively and forms an opinion that the offence under S.32 was forthcoming in a case then the course open to such Court would be to direct the appropriate police station to register a separate FIR against the Authorized Officer---Before ordering registration of FIR against an Authorized Officer the Court would have to form a tentative opinion on the basis of material present before it---For said purpose, a show-cause notice should also be served on the Authorized Officer and he should be provided an opportunity of hearing before lodging criminal prosecution against him---After registration of such FIR, investigation of the case would automatically trigger---In accordance with S.45 of the Act read with Chapter 14 Cr.P.C., investigations were to be conducted by another Authorized Officer---At the conclusion of investigation report was to be submitted to the Trial Court in the form of challan like in rest of the cases and then the special Court was supposed to conduct trial in the case having exclusive jurisdiction to try the case under S.23 of the Act---In the present case, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant without any investigation and trial was not sustainable---Resultantly, appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of above observations. Karl John Joseph v. The State PLD 2004 SC 394; Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State through Deputy Attorney General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and another 2020 PCr.LJ 1618; Abdul Hafeez v. Mahmood Ahmad alias Mooda and another 2016 PCr.LJ 275; Muhammad Iqbal Nawaz v. The State 2019 MLD 954; Saiful Hussain alias Faisal Hussain and 2 others v. The State 2013 MLD 1431 and Asadullah v. the State 2014 MLD 121 ref. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Hindustan Bulk Carriers 2003 259 ITR 449 rel. Saleemullah Khan Ranazai and Saif-ur-Rehman Khan for Appellant. Ghulam Muhammad Sappal, Addl. A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2024.