Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302, 34 & 449---Murder with common intention---House-trespass to commit offence punishable with death---Ocular account---Identification parade---Judicial confession---Corroboration---Prosecution version believed on basis of ocular account of complainant (brother of deceased) and widow of deceased, supported by servant witnessing escape---Non-nomination of accused in FIR/161 statements not fatal where witnesses gave detailed physical descriptions at first instance and later identified accused through a fair identification parade---Ocular account corroborated by properly conducted identification parade, judicial confessions recorded in accordance with law, and medical evidence---Convictions under PPC upheld. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ----Ss. 6, 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 21-I & 21-M---Murder of public servant/judicial officer---Nexus with official duty---Terrorism---Targeted killing of serving judicial officer at residence, motivated by grievance arising from performance of judicial functions, held to transcend private vendetta and strike at authority of State and administration of justice---Such act creates fear/insecurity and intimidates public servants, bringing offence within definition of terrorism---Convictions and sentences under ATA upheld---Distinction from plea based on Ghulam Hussain’s case made on ground of nature/impact of targeted attack on judicial officer due to official act. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat / criminal evidence principles ----Identification parade---Compliance with Rules and Orders of Lahore High Court (Chap.11, Part-C, Vol-III)---Safeguards---Identification parade conducted promptly, separately for each accused, with safeguards preventing prior exposure---Positive identification with specific roles; role of firing consistently attributed to one accused---Proceedings held fair and reliable. (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Ss. 164 & 364---Judicial confession---Voluntariness---Safeguards---Confessional statements recorded separately, after sufficient time for reflection, meeting mandatory requirements---No evidence of coercion/inducement/torture---Confessions mutually corroborative and consistent with ocular/medical evidence---Used as strong corroborative evidence. (e) Sentence ----Capital punishment---Mitigating circumstances---Single shot---Minor inconsistencies/procedural flaws---Effect---Minor inconsistencies not sufficient for acquittal may operate as mitigating circumstance for reduction/commutation of sentence---Where firing accused caused death by single shot and did not repeat despite opportunity, along with minor procedural flaws in confession, held sufficient to commute death to life imprisonment while maintaining conviction---Co-accused with no firing role already granted commutation by High Court; Supreme Court found no further interference warranted in their case. Cited cases: • Ghulam Hussain & others v. The State & others, PLD 2020 SC 61 • Riaz Hussain v. The State, Crl.A No.22-K/2022 in Crl.P.L.A. No.184-K/2020, decided on 23.10.2025 Disposition: Jail Petition No.498 of 2021 (Aamer Bhatti) dismissed; leave refused; conviction and sentences maintained as upheld by High Court. Jail Petition No.432 of 2021 (Rashed alias Chand) dismissed; leave refused; conviction and sentences maintained as upheld by High Court. Jail Petition No.432 of 2021 (Fiaz alias Mansha) partly allowed; converted into appeal; conviction upheld; death sentence “under each count” commuted to imprisonment for life; convictions and sentences in remaining offences maintained.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b) & 449---Qatl-i-amd---House-trespass to commit offence punishable with death---Conviction---Ocular account---Related witnesses---Credibility---Prompt FIR---FIR lodged promptly on same day of occurrence without delay, excluding possibility of deliberation or fabrication---Prosecution case rested primarily on eye-witness account of deceased’s parents, who were natural inmates of house and whose presence at spot was natural---Ocular version found internally consistent, substantially unshaken in cross-examination and assigning specific, effective role to accused---Medical evidence fully corroborated manner, locale and time of occurrence and supported firearm injury as narrated---Relationship of witnesses with deceased not a ground to discard testimony when otherwise confidence-inspiring and natural---Conviction under Ss.302(b) & 449 maintained. (b) Criminal jurisprudence ----Motive---Recovery of weapon---Effect---Even if motive and recovery excluded from consideration, straightforward ocular account duly supported by medical evidence sufficient to sustain conviction---High Court had already viewed motive and recovery with reservation yet maintained conviction---Non-establishment of motive or inconsequential recovery not fatal where direct trustworthy ocular evidence exists. (c) Criminal trial ----Appreciation of evidence---Misreading or non-reading---Perversity---Concurrent findings---Interference by Supreme Court---No material misreading or non-reading of evidence, contradiction going to root of prosecution case or perversity in concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court shown---In absence thereof, interference in conviction not warranted. (d) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Sentence---Death penalty v. life imprisonment---Enhancement---High Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining conviction---No legal ground made out for restoration of death sentence---Complainant’s enhancement petition not pressed at time of dictation of short order---Sentence of life imprisonment upheld. (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----S. 544-A---Compensation---Default sentence---Compensation awarded to legal heirs maintained---Default imprisonment upheld---Benefit of S.382-B maintained---Sentences directed to run concurrently upheld. Cited cases: Nil mentioned in judgment text. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 607 of 2021 dismissed and Criminal Petition No. 1820-L of 2021 dismissed; conviction of petitioner under sections 302(b) and 449, PPC maintained; sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) as awarded by High Court upheld; compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., fine and default sentences maintained; benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and direction of concurrent running of sentences upheld; enhancement petition not pressed.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302 & 449 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 382-B & 544-A --- Murder --- House Trespass --- Life Imprisonment ---Muhammad Ali, petitioner, was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia, pursuant to case FIR No. 208/2015, dated 04.06.2015, under section 302 PPC, registered at police station City Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh --- Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.03.2016, convicted petitioner under Section 302 PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life --- He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- to legal heirs of deceased as envisaged under section 544-A Cr.P.C, recoverable as arrears of land revenue or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months --- Petitioner was also convicted under section 449 PPC and sentenced to ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) months --- Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of petitioner and both sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently --- In appeal, learned High Court while maintaining convictions and sentences of petitioner under Section 302/449 PPC, dismissed appeal filed by petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 14.10.2021 --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- Occurrence in this case took place on 04.06.2015, at about 5.30 a.m --- Matter was reported to police and formal FIR was also lodged on same day i.e., 04.06.2015, at about 6.30 a.m, which means that FIR was lodged within period of one hour from time of occurrence --- We are, therefore, of view that FIR was promptly lodged in this case and there was no conscious or deliberate delay in reporting matter to police --- Ocular account of prosecution has been brought on record through Mst. Farzana Bibi (PW-8) and Muhammad Junaid (PW-9) --- Occurrence in this case took place inside house of Mst. Farzana Bibi (PW-8), who was wife of Abdul Ghani (deceased) --- Likewise, Muhammad Junaid (PW-9), was real son of deceased, therefore, presence of abovementioned eye-witnesses at time of occurrence in their own house cannot be termed as unnatural or improbable --- Said witnesses being inmates of house, where occurrence took place, were natural eye-witnesses of occurrence --- They both stated that on 04.06.2015, at about 5.30 a.m, Muhammad Ali (petitioner), while armed with pistol trespassed into their house and made fire shot, which landed on right side of head of Abdul Ghani (deceased) --- Both abovementioned eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but their evidence could not be shaken --- They remained consistent on all material aspects of case --- Their evidence is confidence inspiring and trustworthy --- Although learned counsel for petitioner has argued that both abovementioned eye-witnesses were chance witnesses as they were residents of district Lahore, whereas third eye-witness namely Muhammad Shabbir PW was not produced in witness box but we have noted that both abovementioned eye-witnesses have mentioned their address of Kamalia while appearing before learned trial Court --- No suggestion was put to them that they were not residents of Kamalia or they had no house in said village/town --- Moreover, it is by now well settled that it is quality and not quantity of evidence which weighs with Courts to decide any case, therefore, non-production of Muhammad Shabbir PW is of no avail to prosecution --- Medical evidence of prosecution has been brought on record through Dr. Ali Raza (PW-5), who stated that he conducted postmortem examination on dead-body of Abdul Ghani (deceased), on 04.06.2015 --- As per postmortem report of deceased, he (PW-5), conducted postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased on 04.06.2015, at about 2.40 p.m --- Dr. Ali Raza (PW-5), noted firearm entry wound near right eye of deceased --- Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was conflict between ocular account and medical evidence of prosecution because as per ocular account as mentioned in FIR, fire shot made by petitioner landed on right side of head of deceased but according to medical evidence, entry wound was near right eye instead of right side of head of deceased --- We are of view that minor variations in ocular account and medical evidence of prosecution about seat of injury, as stated above is inconsequential because it is by now well settled that eye-witness is not expected to give photo-picture of each and every injury received by deceased, in state of panic and sensation which develops at time of occurrence due to attack and firing of accused --- Reference in this context may be made to case of "Abdur Rauf vs.The State and another" (2003 SCMR 522) --- We are, therefore, of view that there is no substance in abovementioned argument of learned counsel for petitioner --- Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgments reported as "Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others" (2017 SCMR 54) and "Zafar v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326), has argued that postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased was conducted with delay of about nine (09) hours and ten (10) minutes from occurrence, which shows that eye-witnesses were not present at spot and abovementioned delay was consumed in procuring attendance of fake eye-witnesses --- We are of view that time must have consumed in making arrangements for transportation of dead-body of deceased to hospital --- Moreover, no question was put to Medical Officer (Dr. Ali Raza, PW-5), regarding any intentional delay in conducting postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased or any delay in receipt of police papers --- Under circumstances, delay in conducting postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased as pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner is not fatal to prosecution case --- We are of view that medical evidence produced through Dr. Ali Raza (PW-5), has fully supported ocular account of prosecution brought on record through Mst. Farzana Bibi (PW-8) and Muhammad Junaid (PW-9) --- Keeping in view all aforementioned facts, we have come to irresistible conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against petitioner beyond shadow of any doubt --- Learned Courts below have rightly passed impugned judgments --- Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments warranting our interference --- Consequently this petition is dismissed and leave is refused --- Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 393, 449—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-A—Qatl-i-Amd—Benefit of doubt—Absence of proven motive—Reduction of sentence—Scope. Petitioner Ahsin Ali was convicted and sentenced to death under S. 302(b) PPC for committing the murder of Muhammad Amjad during an attempted robbery, while co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was awarded life imprisonment under the same charge for allegedly restraining the deceased—Both were further convicted under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC for attempted robbery and house trespass, respectively—High Court upheld the convictions and sentences—Supreme Court, on reappraisal of evidence, found that prosecution failed to prove any specific motive for murder; no looted property or stolen items were recovered, and prosecution’s claim of dacoity was contradicted by lack of recoveries and failure to implicate alleged instigator—Postmortem inconsistencies did not materially contradict ocular evidence of hatchet-inflicted head injuries by Ahsin Ali, who was apprehended on the spot with a bloodstained hatchet—Nonetheless, due to lack of proven motive and in line with settled jurisprudence, death sentence was converted to life imprisonment—Convictions under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC were set aside as prosecution failed to establish ingredients of those offences—Compensation and default imprisonment under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. were upheld. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 389/2023 (Ahsin Ali) converted into appeal and partly allowed—Death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC reduced to life imprisonment—Acquitted under Ss. 393 & 449 PPC. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34—Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Participation limited to ‘Jappah’ (holding the deceased)—No injury attributed—Acquittal. Co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased (Jappah) during the assault—No injury was attributed to him by any witness—Weapons allegedly carried by him were not recovered on his pointation—Held, in absence of overt act or corroborating circumstances linking him conclusively to the offence, benefit of doubt was warranted—His case was distinguished from principal offender—Reliance placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850), Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470), and Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376), where similar limited participation led to acquittal—Consequently, conviction under S. 302(b) PPC was set aside. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 549/2023 (Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani) converted into appeal and allowed—Acquitted of all charges—Released if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850) • Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470) • Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376) • Arshad Beg v. The State (2017 SCMR 1727) • Allah Wasaya v. The State (2017 SCMR 1797) • Muhammad Yasin v. The State (2024 SCMR 128) • Iftikhar Mehmood v. Qaiser Iftikhar (2011 SCMR 1165) • Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State (2013 SCMR 1602) • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693)

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Benefit of doubt—Failure to prove identification and arrest at scene—Conviction set aside—S. 7(i)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Ss. 302(b), 449, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337 PPC—Ss. 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908—S. 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965—Petitioners were convicted and sentenced under multiple provisions including death and life imprisonment—Held, petitioners were not named in FIR or initial police reports, nor identified by any eyewitness including complainant or management of worship place—Star witness (Name withheld) did not appear, and other cited eyewitnesses failed to testify—Claim of arrest at scene contradicted by record—Held, serious doubts in prosecution’s version warranted benefit of doubt—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).(b) Criminal trial—Unreliable ocular testimony—Witness not named in FIR or site plan—Declared hostile by prosecution—PW-13 Inspector (name withheld), claimed to witness arrest and recovery but was not mentioned in FIR, site plan, or police narrative—Prosecution itself sought to declare him hostile—No other witness corroborated his presence or version—Held, evidence of witness not cited in FIR or shown present at scene is not trustworthy—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Criminal trial—Contradictory recovery evidence—Recovery of suicide vests and ammunition—Doubtful presence of recovery witnesses—PW-12 and PW-16 claimed recoveries but failed to corroborate each other’s presence or involvement—PW-16 admitted rough site plan was made on his pointation despite not witnessing occurrence—Held, inconsistencies in recovery evidence undermine prosecution case—No credible evidence on actual recovery process.(d) Criminal trial—Failure to produce medico-legal report—Injury fabrication—Adverse inference against prosecution—Investigating Officer claimed one petitioner was injured and treated at Jinnah Hospital, but no MLR was produced—Prosecution failed to call Medical Officer—Held, failure to produce best possible evidence warrants adverse inference under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984—Petitioner’s version of illegal detention and torture found plausible—Reliance placed on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146), and Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224).(e) Expert testimony—Lack of qualification—Bomb Disposal witness not a chemical expert—No evidentiary value—Bomb Disposal Commander (PW-7) admitted lacking qualifications in chemical analysis—Held, opinion of non-qualified expert not admissible to support explosive-related charges.(f) Criminal trial—Prosecution failure—Principle of benefit of doubt—Multiple material discrepancies including lack of direct evidence, unreliable recoveries, failure to produce key medical and forensic reports, and unqualified expert testimony—Held, case replete with doubts; conviction not sustainable—Petitioners acquitted while extending benefit of doubt.Disposition: Petitions converted to appeals and allowed—Impugned convictions and sentences set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case.Cited Cases:• Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)• Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)• Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490)• Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846)• Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846)• Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146)• Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Law – Post-arrest Appeal – Delay in FIR and Investigation---Criminal appeal—Benefit of doubt—Delay in FIR—Appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 302, 364, 449, and 34 of the PPC—FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of 1 hour and 50 minutes despite complainant's claim of meeting police soon after the incident—Investigating officer failed to disclose how and when he was informed about the crime—No evidence proving an immediate police response—Held, unexplained delay in FIR registration creates suspicion and shatters its sanctity—Reliance placed on Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741).(b) Ocular Testimony – Contradictions Between Eyewitness and Medical Evidence---Eyewitness credibility—Ocular testimony contradicted by post-mortem reports—Complainant and witness claimed injuries to the left side of the victim’s head, but medical examination found no such injury—Conversely, injuries observed on shoulder and other parts were not mentioned by witnesses—Held, when ocular account contradicts medical evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused—Reliance placed on Muhammad Shafi v. The State (2019 SCMR 1045).(c) Rigor Mortis – Conflict Between Time of Death and Medical Evidence---Forensic inconsistencies—Medical reports showed rigor mortis fully developed, indicating death occurred 6-12 hours prior to post-mortem—Crime Report mentioned death at 1:30 a.m., while post-mortem was conducted at 9:00 a.m.—Conflict between stated time of death and forensic findings—Held, such contradictions undermine prosecution’s case—Reliance placed on Asad Rehmat v. The State (2019 SCMR 1156).(d) Chance Witnesses – Failure to Justify Presence at Crime Scene---Witness credibility—All eyewitnesses lived 15-22 km away from the crime scene—No reasonable explanation given for their presence—Prosecution failed to establish why they were at the crime scene at 1:30 a.m.—No efforts were made to contact the deceased by phone—Held, unexplained presence of witnesses renders them chance witnesses, reducing reliability—Reliance placed on Mst. Rukhsana Begum v. Sajjad (2017 SCMR 596).(e) Court Witnesses – Testimony of Family Contradicts Prosecution's Narrative---Independent court witnesses—Court called family members of the deceased (father, mother, and sister) who presented an entirely different version of events—They alleged that different accused persons committed the crime, contradicting the prosecution’s case—Held, prosecution withheld best evidence, creating presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat that their case was fabricated—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507).(f) Recovery of Murder Weapons – Violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C.---Investigative lapses—Weapons recovered 77 to 80 days after the incident—No independent witnesses present at the time of recovery, violating Section 103 Cr.P.C.—Blood-stained weapons allegedly found in the homes of accused, contradicting common sense (i.e., accused had ample time to dispose of them)—Held, recoveries are fabricated and inadmissible—Reliance placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344).(g) Motive – Failure to Prove Illicit Relationship as Reason for Murder---Motive not established—Prosecution alleged that the motive was an illicit relationship between the deceased individuals—No evidence or witness substantiated this claim—Held, failure to prove motive further weakens the case—Reliance placed on Iftikhar Hussain v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449).(h) Acquittal – Prosecution Failed to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt---Failure of prosecution—Multiple discrepancies in FIR, medical evidence, witness statements, and forensic findings—Crime Report contradicted by rigor mortis, absence of independent witnesses, and delayed autopsies—Held, benefit of doubt granted, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).----- Disposition:Criminal appeals accepted – Convictions set aside.Criminal revision for sentence enhancement dismissed.Appellants (Niaz Hussain, Fida Hussain, and Sultan alias Panun) acquitted and released forthwith unless required in another case.---Quote: ''Autopsy and inquest report can be used to depict whether the FIR was ante-dated, with medical and criminal jurisprudence on rigor mortis being a relevant factor as well for this purpose. Effect of any conflict between medical and ocular evidence is assessed, alongwith the intrinsic value and purpose of testimony provided by court witnesses under Section 540 Cr.P.C. The court's authority to presume a fact under Article 129 of QSO and parameters of Section 103 Cr.P.C., as elucidated by a Larger Bench have also been deliberated upon.''

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 302(b), 449 & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 374 Conviction based on untrustworthy ocular evidence, defective identification, and invalid recovery—Reversal of death sentence and acquittal. Prosecution case hinged on the ocular account of PW-10 and PW-11, who claimed to be present at the time of occurrence; however, the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the scene through any credible evidence—Witnesses did not produce documentation proving their employment at the site nor was their presence confirmed through site plans prepared by the IO or draftsman—The behavior of witnesses during the occurrence was held to be unnatural, as they did not intervene or attempt to save the deceased—Such conduct was held contrary to ordinary human behavior as per Art.129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and principles laid down in Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 1373), Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315), and Shahzad Tanveer v. The State (2012 SCMR 172). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) — Arts. 22 & 129 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 161 — Identification parade—Testimony of eyewitnesses not reliable in absence of initial description or features. Appellant was not named in the FIR or initial statements; test identification parade was held without fulfilling legal safeguards—No prior description of the accused’s features was given in the FIR or statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.—Magistrate conducting the TIP failed to record date of custody or match dummy profiles—Witness admitted to having seen the accused in police custody before the parade—Such identification proceedings held unreliable in view of Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956), Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436), and State v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585). (c) Criminal trial — Recovery proceedings—Violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C.—Recovery evidence discarded. Recovery of wooden danda (P-8) held inadmissible due to non-association of independent witnesses—The recovery was effected from a location already visited by police multiple times without observing or collecting the alleged weapon—The recovered item was not blood-stained nor sent for forensic analysis—Such recovery proceedings, carried out in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 103 Cr.P.C., were excluded from consideration—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898). (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 — Motive — Unsubstantiated and weak motive not sufficient to sustain conviction. Prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to reside at the deceased’s workplace and was refused, leading to the altercation—No independent evidence presented to prove the motive or its intensity—Failure to substantiate motive weakened prosecution case—Principle followed from Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021). (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Art. 129—Medical evidence alone insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of credible ocular testimony. Although postmortem report confirmed death due to head injuries, medical evidence could not by itself identify the assailant—In absence of credible and corroborative ocular account, conviction could not be based on medical evidence alone—Guidance taken from Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) and PLD 2021 SC 600. (f) Criminal trial — Benefit of doubt—Right of the accused—Acquittal ordered. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Multiple material contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted—Appellant was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not concession—Principle reinforced through Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736). Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2023 allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted. Murder Reference No. 57 of 2023 answered in Negative—Death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Bail granted --- Background:Muhammad Ashfaq, the petitioner/accused, filed for post-arrest bail in a criminal case under FIR No. 602/2023, registered for offenses under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and later 449 of the PPC, at Saddar Gojra Police Station, Toba Tek Singh. The incident, as per the FIR by complainant Jabbar Ahmad, involved Ashfaq and two others forcibly entering Ahmad's house, with Ashfaq locking a room with witnesses inside, and one of the accomplices shooting Ahmad's brother, Naveed Akhtar, leading to Akhtar's death.----Issues:The involvement of Ashfaq in the alleged crimes, particularly his direct role in the physical harm to Naveed Akhtar.The legality and appropriateness of granting post-arrest bail to Ashfaq considering the investigation's findings and his role in the incident.The impact of the ongoing investigation and the evidence against Ashfaq on the bail decision.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Judge Farooq Haider granted post-arrest bail to Muhammad Ashfaq, considering:Ashfaq's limited role in the incident, not directly inflicting harm but allegedly locking a room and possibly restraining the victim.The absence of evidence showing Ashfaq was armed or directly involved in the shooting.Co-accused Muhammad Nawaz, with a similar allegation of restraint against the victim, was declared innocent in the investigation, suggesting a need for further probe into Ashfaq's involvement.No recovery of evidence from Ashfaq to substantiate his direct involvement in the crime.The principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of advance punishment, aligning with the judicial precedent that errs on the side of granting bail over refusal without conclusive evidence.The court required Ashfaq to post bail bonds worth Rs. 300,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The observations made were tentative, aimed solely at the bail decision, and not intended to influence the trial's outcome, which was urged to be concluded expeditiously.----Citations/Precedents:"Ghulam Hyder vs. The State" (2021 SCMR 1802) for guidance on the implication of actions like locking a room and restraining a victim in a criminal context."Jamil Khan vs. The State and another" (2005 PCr.LJ 2003) referenced for similar legal considerations."Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB vs. Nisar Ahmed Pathan and others" (PLD 2022 SC 475) cited to underscore the principle favoring the granting of bail in cases of uncertain guilt.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Facts:The deceased, Aqsa Munawar, was subjected to a postmortem examination by Dr. Sobia Muneer (PW-9), which suggested a 1 to 2-hour gap between sustaining injuries and death, and a 6 to 10-hour gap between death and the postmortem. The body was received at the dead house at 3:00 PM on 17.10.2016, but the autopsy was delayed until 7:30 PM.Muhammad Arshad (PW-1), the complainant, and other prosecution witnesses (Nusrat Bibi PW-2, and Asad Ullah Khan PW-7) faced scrutiny regarding their statements and actions, including potential concealment of facts and inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding their relationship with a police official named Fakhar.The identification parade for the appellant, Sana Ullah, and co-accused Azhar Waqas, was questioned for its legality and procedural correctness, notably due to the joint parade and potential prior exposure of the accused to the witnesses.----Issue:The credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the legality of the identification parade were key issues, casting doubt on the prosecution's case against the accused.----Holding:The court found significant inconsistencies and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case, leading to doubts about the guilt of the accused.-----Reasoning:The delay in the autopsy, potential concealment of facts by prosecution witnesses, and the questionable identification parade undermined the prosecution's case.Discrepancies in testimonies, particularly regarding the relationship with police official Fakhar and the presence at the hospital, further weakened the prosecution's case.The court also noted procedural irregularities in the handling of evidence, including the recovery and custody of the alleged murder weapon and bullets, which cast doubt on their integrity.----Judgment:The Criminal Appeal No.78000-J of 2019 was accepted, leading to the acquittal of Sana Ullah, the appellant, from all charges (sections 302, 449, 34 PPC) due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.The Criminal Revision No.69601 of 2019 seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed due to the aforementioned reasons.---Key Points:The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in criminal proceedings if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Procedural irregularities, especially in evidence handling and witness identification, can significantly undermine the prosecution's case.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Facts:The petitioner, Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan, challenged the Lahore High Court's decision from August 17, 2021, which had been made by a Single Judge of the Rawalpindi Bench. The challenge was against the denial of post-arrest bail in a case filed under Sections 302/324/449/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for alleged involvement in a murder due to previous enmity. The petitioner was accused of firing a rifle during an attack, while a co-accused allegedly fired shots that killed the victim.---Issue:The core issue was whether the petitioner, not being directly charged but placed in Column No.2 of the investigation report, was entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the CrPC, which allows for bail in cases requiring further inquiry.---Judgment:The Supreme Court, after reviewing the arguments and evidence, including the delay in FIR registration and the verification of the petitioner's alibi through CDR (Call Detail Record) analysis, concluded that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that a person becomes an accused only when charged with an offense, and in this case, the petitioner's status did not meet that criterion. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000 with a surety of the same amount.----Directive:The Court also directed the CPO to take measures to apprehend the co-accused who were still at large and to submit fortnightly progress reports for review.---Conclusion:This case underscores the distinction between being named in an investigation report and being formally charged as an accused, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring that justice is served through careful examination of the facts and evidence before denying or granting bail.