Summary: In case of death due to vasovagal inhibition/shock by blunt trauma cannot be termed as natural death and offence will fall within ambit of offence under section 316, PPC. The amount of diyat shall be imposed according to the rate prevalent during the fiscal year when the case is decided by the court and not according to the date when the occurrence took place. -----Background: In this case, the appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment following an incident in 2015. The appellant allegedly caused the victim’s death by repeatedly kicking and punching him. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, leading to this appeal, where the appellant claimed innocence and argued that three other individuals were responsible for the victim’s death. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution’s eyewitnesses were credible and present at the time of the incident. -----2- Whether the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case. -----3- Whether the delay in conducting the autopsy compromised the case against the appellant. -----4- Whether the nature of the assault (kicks and fists) qualified as “qatl-i-amd” (intentional murder) or “qatl shibh-i-amd” (quasi-intentional murder) under the PPC. -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: --Eyewitness Testimonies: The court found that the eyewitnesses were credible, providing consistent accounts that aligned with the sequence of events described in the FIR. Although related to the deceased, the court ruled their testimonies valid and emphasized that substitution of actual perpetrators is rare in cases where close relatives witness the crime. --Medical Evidence: Medical findings, including bruises and an abrasion on sensitive areas like the left scrotum, aligned with the eyewitnesses' accounts of the injuries inflicted. The court accepted the doctor’s conclusion that the cause of death was vasovagal shock due to blunt trauma to the testis. --Autopsy Delay: The delay in conducting the autopsy was attributed to the non-availability of senior doctors overnight. The court held that this delay did not imply manipulation of the evidence, as the FIR was filed promptly, and essential details of the incident were clearly stated. --Nature of Offense: The court ruled that the nature of the assault did not constitute “qatl-i-amd” (intentional murder), as the injuries were caused by kicks and fists, not weapons. The court reclassified the offense as “qatl shibh-i-amd” under Section 315 PPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with payment of diyat (compensation) to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the current rate for the fiscal year. -----Citations / Precedents: Muhammad Bashir and another vs. The State and others (2023 SCMR 190) Abdul Wahid vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1278) Muhammad Hayat and another vs. The State (2021 SCMR 92) Abdul Wasay and others vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 1059) Gul Zarin and others vs. Kamal-ud-Din and others (2022 SCMR 1085) Ijaz Ahmed vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1577) Azhar Hussain and another vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1907) Shamsher Ahmad and another vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1931) Asfandiyar vs. The State and other (2021 SCMR 2009) Conclusion The appellant’s conviction was reclassified to qatl shibh-i-amd with a sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and diyat payment according to the prevailing rate. The appeal was thus partially accepted, modifying the original sentence under Section 302(b) PPC.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ----S. 316 (qatl by rash/culpable conduct)—Custodial death—Standard of proof on circumstantial evidence—Deceased was brought to Police Station City Mastung and remained in the custody of the appellant (then SHO); PW-6 (santri) and PW-7 (gunman) placed the deceased in the appellant’s control shortly before he was found unconscious; PW-1 (father) and PW-2 heard the deceased’s cries from inside the station; medical evidence (multiple widespread bruises and scalp hematomas) was incompatible with a mere fall while scaling a wall—Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt—Conviction under S.316 maintained; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. noted. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 122—Fact especially within knowledge—Where death occurs in police custody, the officer-in-charge bears a special burden to furnish a plausible explanation; a false or absent explanation can furnish an additional incriminating link—Appellant’s plea that the deceased fell while attempting escape was found absurd and unconvincing in light of medical findings; burden not discharged. (c) Criminal trial—Circumstantial evidence—Caution and tests ----Principles restated—Each link must form an unbroken chain from the dead body to the accused; where links are proven (custody, cries, immediate collapse in SHO’s room, medical injuries, and subsequent conduct), conviction can safely rest on circumstantial evidence. (d) Parity with co-accused—Effect ----Discharge/acquittal of other police officials and co-accused on same occurrence does not ipso facto entitle the SHO to acquittal—Distinct role and exclusive custody furnish differentiating circumstances; “cherry-picking” argument repelled on appraisal of record. (e) Sentencing ----S. 316, P.P.C.—Where motive is not proved and case rests on circumstantial evidence (albeit strong), sentence of 20 years R.I. held harsh—Sentence reduced to 10 years R.I.; direction to pay diyat and other components of the trial court’s judgment maintained; S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to apply. Disposition --- Criminal Appeal partly allowed to the extent of reduction of sentence (20 → 10 years R.I. under S.316, with diyat maintained and S.382-B benefit intact). Criminal Revision for enhancement to death penalty dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Sami Ullah and another (petitioners) sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qabza), Swat, dated 14.02.2020, in Cr.MBCA No.45/46-M/2019.The petitioners were implicated in FIR No.62/2019 dated 08.06.2019 under Sections 316/452/337-A(ii), 337 F(iv)/34 PPC registered at Police Station Sheringal, District Dir Upper.The incident involved the petitioners entering the house of the complainant armed with sticks and stones, resulting in injuries to several individuals, one of whom later succumbed to the injuries.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in recalling the trial court's bail order.Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased, not mentioned in the medical report, justified the recall of bail.Whether the principles governing cancellation of bail were appropriately applied.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners contested the High Court's decision to recall the trial court's bail order, arguing that it lacked legal justification.The High Court's decision was based on the injury sustained by the deceased, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the medical report.The court outlined principles for the cancellation of bail, emphasizing the need for strong and exceptional grounds.It noted the reluctance of superior courts to interfere with bail orders and highlighted the importance of safeguarding liberty.Citing precedent, the court found the recall of bail unjustified and granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.The court clarified that its observations were tentative and had no bearing on the trial court proceedings.---Citations/Precedents:Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)SHAHID ARSHAD versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 others (1976 SCMR 360)

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: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 315 & 316--- Qatl-e-amd, qatl-e-shibh-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Conversion of conviction from S.302(b), P.P.C. to S.316, P.P.C.---Deceased given a beatingby accused (appellant) and co-accused persons during a Church congregation---Accused hitthe deceased with a flowerpot in the heat of the passion---Said fact was corroborated byprosecution witnesses---Quarrel or attack upon the deceased in presence of a biggathering/congregation showed no prior intention on part of the accused and co-accused tokill the deceased---Findings of Trial Court qua intention of accused were not challenged bythe complainant or prosecution---Effect---Accused was required to be sentenced under S.316,P.P.C.---Conviction and sentence of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., was set aside and he wasconvicted and sentenced under S.316, P.P.C.---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for causing the death of the complainant’s son through physical assault (kicks and fists) and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) PPC with additional compensation. The appellant appealed, contending that the actual assailants were others, and he was falsely implicated due to enmity. -----Issues: 1- Did the appellant’s actions constitute qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) or a lesser offense under Pakistani Penal Code? -----2- Was the delay in the autopsy and the appellant’s claim of non-involvement sufficient grounds for acquittal? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction Modified: The court modified the conviction from qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) PPC to qatl shibh-i-amd under Section 316 PPC, stating that the manner of assault (kicks and fists) was not inherently likely to cause death. The appellant was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Diyat to the victim’s heirs, determined according to the prevailing rate in the fiscal year 2024-25. --Ocular and Medical Evidence Consistent: The court found the eyewitness accounts reliable, as they aligned with the medical evidence, which confirmed the cause of death due to vasovagal shock resulting from blunt trauma. --Diyat Amount Determined by Current Fiscal Year: Following precedents, the court set Diyat payment at the rate applicable in the current fiscal year, amounting to Rs. 8,103,955. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Bashir and another vs. The State and others (2023 SCMR 190) Abdul Wahid vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1278) Muhammad Akram alias Akrai vs. The State (2019 SCMR 610) Ghaffar Mahesar vs. The State through P.G Sindh and others (2022 SCMR 1280) Ali Asghar alias Aksar vs. The State (2023 SCMR 596) Aman Ullah and another vs. The State and others (2023 SCMR 723) Imran Mehmood vs. The State and another (2023 SCMR 795) Khalid vs. The State through PG Sindh (2024 SCMR 1474) Aqil vs. The State (2023 SCMR 831) Muhammad Ijaz vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1375) Zaheer Ahmad vs. The State (2014 YLR 967) Suo Motu Action Regarding Non-Payment of Compensation (2012 SCMR 437)