Summary: (a) Qatl-i-amd—Afw (forgiveness) by heir—Effect on Tazir death—Fasād fil-arḍ threshold—Where an adult sane wali validly waives Qisās (Section 309 APC), the court’s residual power to award death under Tazir (Section 311 APC) survives only in exceptional cases meeting the doctrinal standard of fasād fil-arḍ (systemic/public disorder)—Absent such aggravation, overriding a lawful afw by imposing Tazir death is impermissible. Qur’anic scheme (Al-Baqarah 2:178; Al-Mā’idah 5:33) recognized; forgiveness is a divinely sanctioned concession and must be given legal effect. (b) Penal discretion under Section 311 APC—Contours—“Fasād fil-arḍ” requires conduct transcending private grievance and threatening public order (e.g., terror, serial violence, armed insurrection). Mere gravity of a single domestic homicide, without demonstrable societal destabilization, is insufficient to justify Tazir death once Qisās stands waived. (c) Statutory framework—Sections 302(a)–(c), 309, 311 APC—Mapped—(i) Qisās if not forgiven; (ii) Tazir (death or life) where Qisās not applicable; (iii) life imprisonment as Tazir where circumstances so warrant—Valid, unconditional afw by a wali extinguishes retributive death; exceptional Tazir death requires a reasoned finding of fasād fil-arḍ. (d) Proportionality and welfare considerations—Islamic criminal law emphasizes reconciliation and social welfare—Executing Tazir death in the present familial context would orphan minor children and offend proportionality; life impri

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be illicit relations between the nephew of complainant and wife of the accused---It was an admitted fact that eye-witness was the resident of a village, which was admittedly situated at a distance of 1 ½ hours travel from the house of the complainant---Apart from the complainant, there was no eye-witness to the first incident, where the deceased/nephew of complainant lost his life, so the Court was to test the credibility of that witness by taking into consideration the manner in which the incident occurred---Complainant stated that when the deceased did not return, it increased his anxiety,so he and the eye-witness left the house to inquire---Complainant could not explain that for what purpose eye-witness had come to the house and that why both decided to go after the deceased, as the deceased had hardly left an hour before---Complainant could not explain that the appellant had enmity in the area or that he was of such a character, that his late return increased his anxiety, as well as that of the eye-witness---Nothing was brought on record, which would confirm to the Court that the witnesses were worried about the late return of the deceased and that the deceased had enmity in the area---When nothing was brought on record, then the anxiety of the complainant and that of the eye-witness failed to convince the very purpose of their leaving the house and of their reaching to the place of incident---Moreover, it was nothing, but a co-incidence that at that very time, the eye-witness arrived and the deceased was fired at---Eye-witness neither visited the house of the complainant, nor accompanied the complainant to the place of incident---Even otherwise, the manner in which the complainant explained the circumstances, did not appeal to a prudent mind and his conscious attempts had disturbed the judicial mind of the Court, regarding his presence on the spot---When the witnesses failed to convince that they were present on the spot and that the incident occurred in their presence, then the Court was left with the only option to hold that the presence of witnesses was procured, after the incident, so the possibility could not be excluded that preliminary investigation was conducted in the case--- Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Complainant disclosed that the incident occurred at 12:40 hours, whereas the matter was reported to the local police at 13:30 hours, on their arrival to the spot---If the complainant and the eye-witness had reached to the place of occurrence at 12:40 and when the deceased were done to death at the same time, then it was for the complainant to tell that why he and others did not shift the dead bodies to the hospital or to the Police Station---Record was silent and so the complainant that who informed the police and that how the police reached to the place of incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Place where each deceased was done to death doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---On arrival of the local police to the spot, the matter was reported by the complainant, but the scribe stated that on arrival to the spot, the dead body of the male deceased was available, whereas that of the lady deceased was brought to the stated place after his arrival---When the scribe reached to the place of incident and when the report was made by the complainant, then he should have visited the house of the female deceased, as by then her dead body was lying in the house---Explanation given by the scribe regarding the shifting of the dead body of female deceased to the place of the male deceased did not appeal to a prudent mind that for what propose the dead body of the female deceased was brought to the place, where the dead body of male deceased was lying---Said particular aspect of the case had troubled the judicial mind of the Court and the Court was not reluctant in holding that the female was also killed outside the house---Investigating Officer, while preparing the site plans, did not mention the recoveries of empties from the spot, but later the empties were shown recovered, that aspect of the case had further disputed the exact place, where the lady deceased was killed---Such uncertainty showed that the deceased were killed when found together---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Hostile witness, evidence of---Scope---Once a witness is declared hostile, then the witness remains the witness of none---Reliance cannot be placed on the statement of such a witness. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Related witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Relationship of witnesses would hardly be a circumstance for disbelieving them, but once the Court comes to a conclusion that the witnesses are not telling the truth, then under no circumstances their evidence can be taken into consideration. Muhammad Ramzan v. Khizar Hayat and another 2024 SCMR 1085 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Record showed that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account---Had the incident occurred in the mode and manner alleged then the number of injuries would have been different and so their dimension, but as the incident occurred not in the manner as was disclosed, the medical evidence did not support the stance of the complainant, more particularly, when the doctor noted blackening marks on the injures of one of the deceased---Medical evidence was confirmatory in nature---Once the witnesses failed to establish their presenceand once their mala fide to charge the accused come on record, then the conflict between the medical evidence and ocular account would play a major role and this particular case was no exception---Thus, the conflict between the two had damaged the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Motive was stated to be the illicit relationship between the two deceased, but neither the Medical Officer could confirm the same, nor any witness from the house came forward to convince regarding this particular aspect of the case---Though the motive was alleged, but the prosecution failed to prove the same and even the Investigating Officer could not record the statement of any independent witness in that regard---As both the deceased were shown to have died at different places and as they were not found in compromising position, so the motive alleged by the prosecution did not support the stance of the complainant and as the alleged motive was the sole cause of killing, so its failure had damaged the prosecution case and it by itself was sufficient for the acquittal of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Ilyas v. Ishfaq alias Munshi and others 2022 YLR 1620 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Appellant was arrested and from his possession a .30 bore pistol was shown recovered and the collected empties were sent along with the recovered weapon to the Fire Arms Expert and a report was received in positive, but this piece of evidence in isolation would not credit the prosecution, and even the manner in which the accused was arrested and the recovery was made from his possession did not appeal to the judicial mind of the Court---Laboratory report is supportive in nature and it plays a vital role once the prosecution collects independent evidence in its support, but as the prosecution failed to prove its case through independent witnesses, the laboratory report alone could not be taken into consideration for the conviction of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Syed Abdul Fayaz and Khan Bahadar Khan for Appellant. Haq Nawaz Khan, A.A.G for the State. Aurangzeb Khan and Shah Bros Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2024. Sahibzada Asadullah, J .--- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2023 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Model Criminal Trial Court/JGBVC/ Izafi Zilla Qazi, Buner at Daggar, delivered in case FIR No.25 dated 03.03.2021 registered under sections 302/311 P.P.C read with section 15 AA at Police Station Gulbandi, District Buner, whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 302/311 P.P.C and sentenced to death (on two counts) and to pay Rs.500,000/- / Rs.500,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within the meaning of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C or in default whereof to suffer six months SI. The appellant has also been convicted under section 15 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default whereof to further suffer one month S.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently, while benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C has been extended to the convict/appellant. Appellant has impugned his conviction, whereas the learned trial court has sent Murder Reference to this court for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 311 & 299(ee):Honour killing---Post-arrest bail---Inadmissibility of compromise by legal heirs---Scope--- Accused allegedly shot his real sister dead citing "ghairat" (honour) as the motive---Occurrence was witnessed by police officers on routine patrol, who entered the house upon hearing commotion and saw the accused committing the offence---Parents of the deceased did not file complaint nor became witnesses---Accused remained a fugitive for five months and the firearm was recovered upon arrest; a crime empty was secured earlier and sent for forensic analysis---Prosecution collected prima facie sufficient material linking the accused to the offence---Plea that the legal heirs had pardoned the accused on the basis of compromise was found to be of no legal consequence in view of Ss. 302(c), 311 & 299(ee), P.P.C., read with S. 345(2-A) & (7), Cr.P.C., which collectively establish that offences committed in the name of honour are to be treated as Qatl-i-Amd punishable with life imprisonment regardless of waiver or compounding by heirs---Such offences are classified as ‘fasad-fil-arz’ and cannot be compounded except under strict conditions to be determined by the Court.Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State PLD 2001 SC 96, Muhammad Qasim v. The State PLD 2018 SC 840, and Khadim Hussain v. The State PLD 2012 Balochistan 179 relied upon.(b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 9 & 8(1):Right to life---Honour killings---Customs and personal motives not overriding fundamental rights--- No individual is permitted under law or religion to take life in the name of "ghairat"---Honour killings constitute Qatl-i-Amd and violate the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution---Any customary practice or usage seeking to justify such killings is void under Art. 8(1)---Judiciary has expressed grave concern over the misuse of honour as a pretext for violence, especially against women.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(1) & (2):Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Test of reasonable grounds---Applicability--- Contention of conflict between ocular account and medical evidence, i.e., exit wound being shown on the back, was held immaterial at bail stage in light of overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness account, forensic recovery, and the conduct of the accused---Principle of ‘further inquiry’ must be supported by notional or exploratory assessment raising genuine doubt, not vague possibility---In the instant case, reasonable grounds existed to believe that the accused committed a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause---Mere potential for contradiction at trial stage not sufficient to invoke S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.Ata-ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1210 and Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State 2002 SCMR 1886 discussed.(d) Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016----Scope & effect:Statutory amendments curbing honour killings---Compoundability restricted---Punishment enhanced--- The 2016 Amendment Act introduced substantive changes in Ss. 299, 302 & 311, P.P.C., and S. 345, Cr.P.C., rendering offences committed in the name of honour non-compoundable under usual terms and mandating punishment of life imprisonment even if heirs waive qisas---Offences so committed fall within the definition of fasad-fil-arz and attract stricter sentencing guidelines.----Disposition: Bail Petition Dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:This case involves Criminal Petition No. 495 of 2023 heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the order dated April 17, 2023, by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which denied post-arrest bail to Fahad. The case arises from FIR No. 11, dated January 20, 2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/201/202/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), concerning the alleged murder of Mst. Riffat Bibi, purportedly by her husband's brother, Janas, and his son, the petitioner Fahad.----Issues:Whether the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence implicating Fahad in the murder, except for a prior application filed by the deceased, justifies granting bail.Whether further inquiry is required given the available evidence.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that although Janas (the co-accused) had confessed to the murder and led to the recovery of the body, there was no mention of Fahad in any incriminating context within the confession or other statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The only piece of evidence potentially relating to Fahad was an application filed by the deceased days before the incident, the content of which was not deemed sufficiently incriminating on its own. Given the lack of substantial evidence against Fahad, the Court found that his case warranted further inquiry.Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. Fahad was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds worth Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 302, 311, 201, 202, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) - These sections pertain to murder, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) - This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements before Magistrates.Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. - Discusses conditions under which bail may be granted, emphasizing situations requiring further inquiry into the accused's involvement.

Summary: Background: This case involves (appellant), who was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302(b) and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of his wife, Mst. Kousar Bibi, and sentenced to death as Tazir. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangled his wife due to ongoing marital disputes. The complainant, Ghulam Muhammad (PW4), the father of the deceased, and another relative (PW3) testified that they witnessed the murder but did not intervene. The defense appealed against the conviction, raising questions regarding the veracity of the evidence, delay in reporting, and discrepancies in witness statements. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of Mst. Kousar Bibi. -----2- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the delayed postmortem raised reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s case. -----3- Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent with the medical and forensic evidence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt for several reasons: --Delay in FIR and Postmortem: The seven-hour delay in reporting the incident and the nine-hour delay in conducting the postmortem were unexplained, casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative. The court noted that such delays often occur when the complainant and police engage in preliminary inquiries. --Credibility of Witnesses: The conduct of the eyewitnesses was deemed unnatural. Despite being present at the scene, the witnesses did not intervene to stop the unarmed appellant from strangling the victim. Additionally, there were improvements and inconsistencies in their testimonies compared to their initial police statements, further diminishing their credibility. --Non-production of Key Witnesses: The prosecution failed to produce the children of the deceased, who were present during the incident, as witnesses. The court drew an adverse inference from their absence under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. --Medical Evidence: The postmortem report showed that the victim’s hyoid bone was intact, which raised doubts about the claim of manual strangulation. This discrepancy further weakened the prosecution’s case.The prosecution’s claim that the murder was motivated by marital disputes was unsupported by any material evidence.Based on these findings, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitted him, and set aside his death sentence. The murder reference for confirmation of the death penalty was answered in the negative. -----Citations/Precedents: Altaf Hussain vs. The State (2019 SCMR 274) Ghulam Abbas and another vs. The State and another (2021 SCMR 23) Pervaiz Khan and another vs. The State (2022 SCMR 393) Sufyan Nawaz and another vs. The State and others (2020 SCMR 192) Muhammad Adnan and another vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 16) Liaqat Ali vs. The State (2008 SCMR 95) Pathan vs. The State (2015 SCMR 315) Zafar vs. The State and others (2018 SCMR 326) Shaukat Hussain vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1358) Naveed Asghar and two others vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) Khalid Mehmood and another vs. The State (2021 SCMR 810) Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Najaf Ali Shah vs. The State (2021 SCMR 736) The State through P.G. Sindh and others vs. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others (2021 SCMR 873) Muhammad Ashraf alias Nikka vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1328)

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 311 & 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-i-amd---Ta'zir afterwaiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Fasad-fil-Arz---Scope---Trial Courthaving allowed the legal heirs to compound the offence, convicted appellant under S. 311,P.P.C.---Validity---Appellant was habitual and professional criminal and remained fugitivefrom law and during his absconsion he had committed murder and accordingly another firstinformation report (FIR) was registered against him---Appellant had also committed robberyand yet another FIR was registered---Appellant had further committed the dual murders ofhis father and brother, and had also attempted to murder his brother and caused him seriousbullet injuries for which another FIR was lodged---Behaviour and conduct of appellant in thetrial court remained very harsh---Insertion of expression "Fasad-fil-Arz" in S.311, P.P.C. wasthe requirement of socio-cultural setup and to maintain law and order and to save the civilsociety from deterioration---Where a person within a decade and for no sufficient reasonresorted to took lives of four innocent persons, which included his father and brother, heshould not go scot-free just because the legal heirs had waived and compounded the offence---Appellant was "potential danger" to the community, hence he was rightly declared so bythe Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed.

Summary: PLJ 2013 Lahore 349 [Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi] Present Ali Baqar Najafi J JAVED IQBAL Ex No 1079940 SOWAR - - Petitioner versus SHO etc - - Respondents WP No 2222 of 2012 decided on 1452013 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 (3) - - Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S 311 - - Constitutional Petition - - Sentence commuted by competent authority was in excess of powers - - Entitlement of remissions - - Whenever compromise was accepted convict was required to be acquitted - - Legal heirs had not forgiven and principle fisad - fil - arz was attracted - - After commutation of sentence accused entitled to all remissions including presidential remission - - Contention of - - Jail authorities were required to acquit petition in view of compromise affected between legal heirs of deceased - - Petitioner was not tenable as sentence was commuted from death to 14 years in view of principle of Fisad - fil - Arz [P 352] A Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 45 - - Entitlement of remissions - - Contention of - - All legal heirs had not forgiven - - Principle Fisad - fil - Arz was attracted - - Remissions which was made permissible under Art 45 of Constitution might be extended to petitioner was accordance with law - - Petition was accepted [P 352] B Mr Muhammad Wasif Khan Advocate for Petitioner Mr Sardar Maqbool Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan Lt Col Tahir JAG Department GHQJudgement Result:Petition accepted

Summary: Compromise. Nothing on record to impede the process of compromise and punish the accuse u/s 311 P.P.C.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-i-amd---Compromise---During pendency of appeal legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the accused andvoluntarily granted "Afw" to him in the name of Almighty Allah---Nothing existed on recordto impede the process of compromise or persuade to punish the accused by way of Tazir underS.311, P.P.C.---Compromise arrived at by the parties was consequently accepted and theaccused was acquitted accordingly

Summary: Bail denied ---- In order to get a right of bail under the third proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, an accused person has not only to prove that his trial could not be concluded within the statutory period but he has also to prove that the delay in the conclusion of the trial is neither attributable to him nor to any person acting on his behalf besides he has also to prove that his case is not hit by the conditions precedent for attracting the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, the third and fourth provisos to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C could not co-exist. If the fourth proviso does attract to the case of an accused person, then he will not be entitled for the benefit of the third proviso. In order to determine the applicability or otherwise of the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C to the case of an accused person, the Court has to see that as to whether firstly that if he is a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; secondly that if he, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal; and thirdlythat if he has been an accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 3. In forming an opinion by the Court of law that as to whether an accused person is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, it amongst the other factors, could consider the nature of offence, the role attributed to the accused, the manner in which the offence was committed and the conduct of the accused. 4. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, any person is neither legally or religiously have a right to take the law into his own hands nor to take the life of anybody in the name of family honour.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 154, 342, 374 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 311, 338-C — Qatl-e-amd — Defective FIR — False implication — Benefit of doubt — Acquittal FIR was lodged belatedly via a written application (Exh.PA) after oral narration of the occurrence to a police official at the police station, which was not recorded contemporaneously. The Court held that the true “first information” under S.154, Cr.P.C., was the unrecorded verbal statement by the complainant to the Moharrar, rendering the written application inadmissible as FIR in stricto sensu. Lack of blood marks or dragging signs at the alleged outdoor scene contradicted the prosecution version. Ocular evidence was rendered doubtful due to the chance witness status of both prosecution eyewitnesses, who failed to offer credible reasons for their presence at the scene. Testimonies were held to be “suspect evidence,” warranting rejection without corroboration. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142 • Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 • Sarfaraz v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 (b) Qatl-e-amd — Recovery evidence — Weapon recovery — Tampering and delay — Forensic inconclusiveness — Effect Pistol and chhurri allegedly recovered on the appellant’s pointation were found unreliable. The pistol parcel reportedly included six live bullets, yet PFSA report failed to confirm receipt of the same, raising tampering concerns. The chhurri was recovered after 27 days; its forensic report was held inconsequential as human blood disintegrates within three weeks. Thus, recoveries were held uncorroborated and irrelevant for confirming the prosecution’s version. Cited Cases: • Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2016 SCMR 2138 (c) Evidence — Ocular account — Chance witnesses — Lack of proximity — Dishonest improvements — No corroboration Complainant and PW-2 were not residents of the area of occurrence and offered no plausible explanation for following the deceased. Their statements lacked corroboration, were riddled with improvements, and were not supported by independent or forensic evidence. No witness from the locality or the alleged house of the deceased’s maternal uncle was presented. In the absence of reliable and independent eyewitness account, the prosecution's version collapsed. (d) Criminal trial — Medical and motive evidence — Corroborative value — Cannot identify assailant — Motive inconsequential if ocular account fails Medical evidence merely confirmed the nature of injuries but could not identify the assailant. Motive alleged was based on marriage without family consent, which the Court held to be a double-edged sword—capable of both implicating and exonerating the accused. With the ocular account discredited, motive was declared inconsequential. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 • Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 486 (e) Criminal trial — Standard of proof — Single dent in prosecution case sufficient for acquittal — Legal principle affirmed The Court reaffirmed the principle that even a single material defect in the prosecution case is sufficient to acquit the accused. In the instant case, multiple material contradictions, gaps, and inconclusive forensic evidence created reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Case: • Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 Disposition: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted. Death sentence not confirmed; Murder Reference answered in negative. ---- "FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR."