Summary: (a) Criminal Law: --- Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 452 --- Murder, attempted murder, trespass --- Commutation of death sentence --- The appellant was convicted for Qatl-e-Amd (murder) under Section 302(b) PPC on three counts for the murder of two women and an unborn child and was sentenced to death on all three counts. Additionally, he was convicted under Sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 452 PPC for causing injuries to two other individuals and for trespassing. The trial court's conviction was upheld by the High Court. Held, while the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the two murders and the injuries, the conviction for the death of the unborn child was set aside due to the non-framing of a charge for this distinct offence. The omission to frame a charge under Section 233 Cr.P.C. rendered the trial defective for this count, violating the fundamental right to a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction for the unborn child's death was set aside. Further, considering mitigating factors, including the absence of premeditation and the failure to prove motive, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. (b) Criminal Procedure: --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 221-240, 342 --- Right to fair trial --- Defective charge framing --- Impact on conviction --- A separate charge must be framed for each distinct offence under Sections 221-240 Cr.P.C.. The failure to frame a charge for the alleged murder of the unborn child deprived the accused of a proper opportunity to defend himself, constituting a substantial illegality that vitiated the trial in respect of that count. Held, a person cannot be convicted for an offence for which they were not charged. The prosecution's failure to frame a charge violated the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, necessitating the setting aside of the conviction for the unborn child’s death. (c) Constitutional Law: --- Art. 10-A --- Right to a fair trial --- Due process in criminal trials --- The right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, requires that an accused be made fully aware of the charges against them and be given an opportunity to present a defense. Held, failing to frame a charge for the unborn child's death and not confronting the accused with the specific allegation under Section 342 Cr.P.C. amounted to a denial of this constitutional guarantee, rendering the conviction unsustainable. (d) Sentencing: --- Murder trial --- Commutation of death sentence --- Consideration of mitigating factors --- The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to the presence of mitigating factors, including the absence of premeditation, the failure to prove motive, and the circumstances suggesting a sudden altercation rather than a planned murder. Held, courts must ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the circumstances of the offence, and where reasonable doubt exists regarding premeditation, capital punishment should not be imposed. The principle that an unsubstantiated motive benefits the accused was reaffirmed. (e) Disposition: Appeal partly allowed. Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Conviction for the unborn child’s death set aside. Other sentences remain unchanged.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Issue(s):The propriety of framing charges under the ATA of 1997 against the petitioner.Whether the evidence presented and the procedure followed in the case justified the charges and subsequent conviction of the petitioner.-----Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court.----Reasoning:----Defective Charges: The Supreme Court found the charges framed against Shahid to be vague and lacking specificity regarding the alleged offenses under the ATA of 1997. The Court noted the importance of framing precise charges to inform the accused of the nature of allegations and to focus the trial on relevant evidence.----Insufficient Evidence: The Court observed that the evidence and the FIR did not substantiate the charges against Shahid, specifically under Section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, which deals with fundraising for terrorism. The FIR and subsequent investigations failed to concretely link Shahid to the collection of funds with the intention or knowledge that they would be used for terrorism.----Procedural Flaws: The Court highlighted procedural irregularities, such as the failure to document the spy's information in writing and the lack of forensic analysis of the alleged signatures of Shahid in the donation book. These flaws cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence against Shahid.----Quality of Evidence: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for high-quality evidence in cases involving serious offenses like terrorism, which was lacking in Shahid's case. The Court criticized the practice of implicating individuals based on weak or speculative evidence.----Disposition: The convictions and sentences against Zain Shahid were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. The Supreme Court ordered his immediate release unless required in another case.---Quote: ''Framing of charge is the foundation of trial; section 221 of Cr.P.C. provides an elaborate procedure for framing of charge; it is the responsibility of the Trial Judge to take all necessary and possible steps to ensure compliance of law with regard to framing of proper and unambiguous charge; if necessary ingredients of the offences with which the accused is charged, are not mentioned in the charge, or it is framed in an incomplete, defective or vague manner, it might mislead the accused, which would be a failure of justice.''

Summary: 9-C of CNS Act. Object of the charge----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 29---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 &4---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)---Possessing narcotics, prohibitionof manufacturing and owning intoxicant and possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation ofevidence---Raid was conducted at odd hours of the night at about 10-15 P.M., there was nopossibility of availing search warrants as emergency for the raid was mentioned in the F.I.R.---Even otherwise S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered theofficer to enter, search and arrest without warrants; and S.20 of the Act being directory innature, its non-compliance could not be considered a strong ground for holding that the trialof accused was bad in the eye of law---Prosecution witnesses had throughout remainedconsistent and no contradictions were noticed in their statements with regard to the recoveryof opium from the Baitak in presence and possession of accused---Presumption under S.29 ofControl of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was that unless the contrary was proved, accusedwould be considered to have committed offence under the Act in respect of contraband---Accused, in the present case, had failed to rebut said presumption---Defence, during the trialwas wavering and was not consistent in its plea---Objection of the counsel for accused on theanalysis report was also vague as the report was issued by Federal Government Analyst, whohad received sealed parcel of suspected material---Charge against accused was not defectiveas urged by accused and no error or illegality was found in the same---Accused had failed tosubstantiate his plea that he had any dispute/quarrel with or had enmity with Officer of AntiNarcotic Force---Defence plea proved to be sham and baseless and there was no possibilityof false implication or foisting the contraband---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved itscase against accused up to the hilt with regard to recovery of 15.500 Kgs opium---Convictionawarded to accused by the Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence onrecord and no reason existed to interfere in the same. 2001 SCMR 36 rel.2009 PCr.LJ 1270 and 2002 MLD 1198 distinguished.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 221---Charge---Object---Object of the charge was to enable accused to know theprecise accusation against him, which he was required to meet before evidence was adducedby the prosecution against him.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) – S.9: ---Conviction and acquittal---Recovery of narcotics---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by the Trial Court under S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) for possessing 2,500 grams of Charras and sentenced to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine---Accused contended that he was falsely implicated, that the Hujra (place of recovery) was jointly owned by three brothers, and that the prosecution failed to procure independent witnesses despite the area being thickly populated---Trial Court disregarded the absence of private witnesses and relied solely on official witnesses---Prosecution failed to send the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on the same day, leading to a delay with no plausible explanation, raising doubt regarding the integrity of the chain of custody---Moreover, no evidence was presented to prove that the Hujra exclusively belonged to the accused, especially when the Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that it was jointly owned and accessible to others---Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in criminal cases, benefit of doubt must go to the accused---Conviction and sentence set aside---Accused acquitted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S.221: ---Framing of charge---Previous convictions---Prosecution's duty---Under S.221, Cr.P.C., it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to properly frame charges, particularly when alleging previous convictions---Prosecution failed to present certified copies of previous judgments or FIRs as required under the law, merely exhibiting a list of previous convictions without legal backing---Held, failure to follow the mandatory provisions of law in framing the charge vitiated the prosecution’s case, further reinforcing the doubt surrounding the case against the accused. -----Disposition: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, accused acquitted.