Summary: Acquittal ---- Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182, 211, 409, 380 & 454---False information with intent to cause public servant touse his lawful power to the injury of another person, false charge of offence made with intentto injure, criminal breach of trust by public servant, theft in dwelling house, lurking housetrespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment---Appreciation of evidence---Absence of mens rea---Effect---Complainant/police constable gotlodged FIR that his official Kalashnikov was stolen from his house---Prosecution case wasthat the complainant had failed to deposit the Kalashnikov with the department; that he hadembezzled the official Kalashnikov; that he got lodged a false FIR and that duringinvestigation no signs of theft were observed---Prosecution case was based uponpresumptions and assumptions---Complainant himself had reported to police station withregard to missing of official Kalashnikov from his house, thus, he discharged his liability andapparently no mens rea existed on this part---Petition was accepted, judgments passed byMagistrate and Sessions Judge were set aside and the complainant, was acquitted of thecharge.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alternate remedy---Petitioner assailed judgment passed by Trial Court,whereby respondent was acquitted of the charges---Validity---Remedy of appeal wasprovided under S.417, Cr.P.C. to an aggrieved person, against finding of acquittal---TrialCourt, through order in question, acquitted respondent but petitioner did not file appealagainst it, therefore, constitutional petition to the extent of acquittal of respondent was notcompetent in presence of alternate remedy.(b) Administration of justice-------Non-following of the procedure---Effect---When statute prescribes an act to be done in amanner, then it must be done as directed so, and its deviation vitiate entire proceedings. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182 & 211---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 155, 195 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---False information to publicservant and false charge---Quashing of proceedings---Taking of cognizance---Earlier, a casewas registered by petitioner against respondent and Trial Court acquitted respondent on theground that case was false---Subsequently, on the direction of Sessions Judge, case underS.182, P.P.C. was registered against petitioner---Validity---Registration of F.I.R. by police onletter issued by District Attorney on behalf of Sessions Judge followed by investigation bypolice, at his own were not permitted by law---Such act of police was void, unlawful and trialon the basis of the same was coram non judice---Proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. could onlybe initiated on a written complaint of police officer but the section was inserted in F.I.R. on aletter from District Attorney---Offence having not been included on a written complaint ofpolice officer concerned, proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. were unlawfully initiated againstpetitioner---Proceedings under S.211, P.P.C. could only be initiated on a written complaint ofa court or by any other court to which such court was subordinate but there was no complaintin writing from Trial Court or any other court---Provisions of sections 155 and 195, Cr.P.C.were mandatory in nature, therefore, its non-compliance vitiated entire proceedings---F.I.R. registered against petitioner on the direction of Trial Court was void and illegal, henceproceedings initiated against petitioner were without jurisdiction---Order passed by SessionsJudge for registration of case was set aside and F.I.R. registered against petitioner wasquashed---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Background Muhammad Hassan and co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, for offenses under sections 302, 324, 211, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) related to a murder and assault case (FIR No. 154/2008). Hassan was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, while Ibrahim was sentenced for causing hurt. Both filed appeals: Hassan sought acquittal and Ibrahim sought the reinstatement of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court altered Hassan's sentence from death to life imprisonment but upheld the conviction. Hassan and Ibrahim then filed petitions in the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1. Whether the conviction and sentencing of Muhammad Hassan for murder were justified. 2. Whether the delayed FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution's case. 3. Whether the presence of the prosecution's eyewitnesses at the scene was justified. 4. Whether the recovery of the weapon and other evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. 5. Whether the motive alleged by the prosecution was credible. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned the Lahore High Court's judgment and acquitted Muhammad Hassan. The Court provided the following key points in its reasoning: ----Delayed FIR: The FIR was lodged more than sixteen hours after the incident, with no explanation for the delay. This delay indicated possible fabrication and consultation, which compromised the credibility of the prosecution's case. ----Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution's key witnesses were deemed "chance witnesses" as their presence at the crime scene was not convincingly justified. Their statements lacked corroboration, and their reasons for being at the scene were questionable. ----Recovery of Evidence: The recovery of the weapon (single barrel gun) on Hassan’s pointation was not supported by a positive report from the firearm expert. This lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. ----Medical Evidence: The Court reiterated that medical evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot independently sustain a conviction if the direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) is unreliable. ----Motive: The alleged motive for the crime was found to be double-edged and insufficiently substantiated. The Court noted that the complainant's active pursuit of the case, despite having no direct relation to the victim, raised doubts about the genuineness of the motive. ----Conclusion: The Supreme Court converted the Jail Petition for Leave to Appeal into an appeal, allowed it, and acquitted Muhammad Hassan of the charges, ordering his release. The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal filed by the complainant seeking the death sentence for Hassan was dismissed. The Court emphasized the importance of credible eyewitness testimony, timely FIR reporting, and the corroborative nature of medical and recovery evidence in criminal proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: Amir Muhammad Khan vs. The State (2023 SCMR 566): Delay in reporting the matter to the police indicates possible fabrication. Mst. Sughra Begum vs. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142): Testimony of chance witnesses requires justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene. Muhammad Irshad vs. Allah Ditta and others (2017 SCMR 142): Presence of chance witnesses at the crime scene must be convincingly established. Sufyan Nawaz vs. The State and others (2020 SCMR 192): Testimony of chance witnesses is suspect without clear reasons for their presence. Salamat Mansha Masih vs. The State and another (PLD 2022 SC 751): Medical evidence is corroborative and cannot replace unreliable direct evidence. Hayatullah vs. The State (2018 SCMR 2092): Conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of medical evidence. Nasir Javaid vs. The State (2016 SCMR 1144): Recovery evidence is corroborative and relevant only when primary evidence is reliable. Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu vs. The State (2019 SCMR 652): Once a loophole in the prosecution case is observed, the benefit goes to the accused. Abdul Jabbar vs. The State (2019 SCMR 129): Prosecution case must be free of reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction.