Summary: Background:The petitioner, Shakeel Abbas, was convicted under section 302 (b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his two minor sons.The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, with orders for the sentences to run concurrently, and directed payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.On appeal, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of murder charges but convicted him under section 316 PPC (causing death by neglect).The State did not challenge the acquittal under section 302 (b) PPC or seek enhancement of the sentence.---Issues:Whether the conviction under section 316 PPC is sustainable if there was no "intent to cause harm to the body."If the conviction under section 316 PPC is not sustainable, whether the petitioner could still be convicted under sections 319 PPC or 321 PPC.Whether the petitioner can be detained indefinitely if he fails to pay diyat (compensation) due to poverty, and if such detention aligns with Islamic principles.Whether notifications under section 323 PPC adequately consider the financial position of convicts.Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007 regarding "part payment" and detention of convicts.---Outcome:Leave to appeal is granted to consider the raised issues.Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Qadri is appointed as counsel for the petitioner at State expense.Notices are issued to various parties, including the Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocate General Punjab, and others, to obtain their opinions and submissions on the raised issues.

Summary: Background:Syed Azhar Hussain Shah was convicted and sentenced by a trial court for offenses under sections 324, 334, and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Upon appeal, the Court of Session upheld most of the convictions and sentences but reduced the sentence under section 324, PPC. The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on specific legal questions.---Issues:Whether a Magistrate empowered under sections 30 and 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is competent to try offenses punishable with Diyat or Arsh, considering these punishments are newly introduced under Qisas and Diyat laws.Whether a trial conducted by such a Magistrate, awarding Diyat or Arsh, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.Whether the recent amendment conferring jurisdiction on Magistrates to award Arsh and Daman excludes Diyat.Whether the Diyat amount can exceed that fixed for Qatl-e-Amad, and which court has jurisdiction in such cases.Whether injuries to internal organs not specifically mentioned in relevant provisions of the PPC can be equated to those mentioned.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The trial by a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Cr.P.C. for offenses under sections 324, 334, and 336, PPC, was valid as per jurisdictional provisions.The limitation on the sentence a Magistrate can pass does not affect their jurisdiction to try an offense.The issue of Diyat is irrelevant to cases where the victim survives.The appellant's guilt was established through consistent eyewitness and medical evidence.The appeal was dismissed, convictions and sentences upheld, and the benefit of concurrent sentences granted to the appellant.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Wasaya and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others (2012 SCMR 193)Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898Section 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 299, 323, 382-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)---Quote:Section 34 of Cr.PC provides that the Court of a Magistrate specially empowered under section 30 of Cr.PC may pass any sentence authorized by the law except the sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years but that limitation on the sentence to be passed by a Magistrate only regulates the punishment and not the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try an offence.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 309, 310, 311 & 323---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-eamd---Compromise---Waiver---Afw of Qisas---Payment of Badal-e-Sulh---Compromise wasarrived at between accused and legal heirs of the deceased, whereby legal heirs of the deceasedhad waived their right of Qisas without accepting any Diyat or compensation, and prayed thataccused be acquitted of the charge---Genuineness of compromise arrived at between the partieswas duly verified by the Sessions Judge---Out of nine legal heirs of the deceased two wereminors---Mother of said minors appeared before the court and recorded her statement on theirbehalf, with the assertion that she had waived the right of Qisas on behalf of the minors beingtheir mother and natural guardian, and that she had forgone the Diyat---Validity---In view ofS.309, P.P.C., there could be no waiver of right of Qisas to the extent of minors, only rightavailable would be compounding of right of Qisas, which could be exercised by 'Wali' of minoron their behalf---Such right was further protected by the Proviso contained in subsection (2) ofS.309, P.P.C.; there must be an acceptance of "Badal-e-Sulh" and value of the same would not beless than the value of Diyat---Waiver of right of Qisas by mother of the minors on their behalfwithout accepting any compensation, was neither legal nor just---Condition provided in S.310,P.P.C. of "Badal-e-Sulh", was to be observed being a legal requirement and withoutdetermination of value of "Badal-e-Sulh", the right of Qisas could not be allowed to becompounded---Settlement arrived at between the parties only would amount to waiver or compounding of right of Qisas, and order of acquittal was not its ultimate result---Discretion laywith the court to make an order of acquittal or conviction of the offender, keeping in view thefacts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence---Accused was acquitted of thecharge under S.302(b), P.P.C.; he would remain in custody until he paid the amount of 'Badal-eSulh' determined as Rs.32,00,000 as per requirement of S.311, P.P.C.---Said amount would bedeposited in the National Savings in the names of minors in equal shares until they attainedmajority.

Summary: Sections 310, 323, 331 PPC. Determination of Diyat, Mode of its payment, specifying shares of minors on acceptance of compromise.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court should have allowed the payment of Diyat amount in the form of landed property, considering the financial position of the petitioners. It was further asserted that the matter had already been compromised between the parties, and the major Walis (legal heirs) of the deceased had waived their right of Qisas (retaliation). However, the only unresolved issue pertained to the determination of Diyat for the minor legal heirs of the victim.The court observed that the trial court had failed to make a specific order either accepting or rejecting the compromise submitted by the parties. Instead, it had directed the payment of Diyat without specifying the amount and the mode of payment. The trial court's order seemed to be based on a misconception that the accused persons were acquitted merely upon the submission of the compromise.The court highlighted the legal requirement for the trial court to make a decision on the compromise, determine the Diyat amount, and specify the shares of the minor legal heirs. The trial court's failure to follow this procedure was noted, and it was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.The judgment referred to relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including Sections 310, 323, and 331, as well as the Diyat, Arsh, and Daman Fund Rules, 2007. The court accepted the quashment petition, set aside the impugned orders, and instructed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law. The legal principle that the ultimate result of a compromise is not an automatic acquittal of the accused was emphasized, and the court underscored the need for the trial court to assess the merits of the case before accepting or rejecting a compromise.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): ---- S. 302, S. 452 & S. 323 – Conviction for murder, house trespass, and causing hurt – Benefit of doubt – Insufficiency of corroborative evidence. The appellant Muhammad Ismail was convicted under S. 302, 452, and 323, P.P.C., while co-accused Mazharali Shah and Niaz Muhammad were convicted under S. 452 and 323, P.P.C., for allegedly trespassing into the house of Dr. Fateh Muhammad, harassing the residents, and fatally shooting his son, Ajaib Khan. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim’s family members and a servant, all of whom were found to have a long-standing enmity with the accused. The Court observed that the testimony was not supported by independent corroborative evidence, rendering it unreliable. The prosecution's theory of a conspiracy by the accused to humiliate and forcibly evict Dr. Fateh Muhammad’s family was found to be inconsistent with the available facts. (b) Criminal Law – Role of Ballistic Evidence – Doubt regarding the prosecution’s version: ---- Forensic analysis linking spent cartridges to the firearm recovered from the victim’s family – Impact on prosecution's case. During appellate proceedings, forensic examination of spent cartridges found at the crime scene revealed that they had been fired from a rifle licensed to Lorasp, son of Dr. Fateh Muhammad. This directly contradicted the prosecution’s version, which blamed the appellants for firing the fatal shots. The prosecution failed to explain this crucial forensic discrepancy, further weakening its case. The Court ruled that the new evidence created serious doubt about the veracity of the charges against the accused. (c) Criminal Procedure – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt: ---- Onus on prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal in absence of credible, independent evidence. The prosecution’s reliance on testimonies from interested witnesses with a history of enmity against the accused was found insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that serious contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative, the absence of independent witnesses, and the forensic evidence favoring the accused warranted the benefit of doubt. It reiterated that in criminal trials, the prosecution must succeed on the strength of its own case rather than on the weakness of the defense. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants were entitled to acquittal. ----Disposition: Appeal accepted. Convictions set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Muhammad Ismail ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.