Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 324, 353, 396, 435, 427, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)----S. 7---Appreciation of evidence---Unnamed accused---Conviction on capital charge---Sustainability---FIR was lodged against unknown assailants and appellants were not nominated by name---Informant attempted to give physical descriptions of only some assailants, but gave no identifying particulars of the remaining alleged offenders including the driver and the LMG operator---Prosecution case rested mainly on ocular account of two witnesses who, despite alleged indiscriminate firing, remained completely unhurt and whose conduct in immediately chasing heavily armed assailants, though they were in plain clothes, unarmed, and had already witnessed one death and multiple serious injuries, was held to be unnatural and contrary to normal human behaviour---Their claimed ability, during a sudden life-threatening attack, to observe and retain minute features such as age, height, complexion and clothing of the assailants was also found inherently improbable---Presence of said witnesses at the place of occurrence was not established through any independent and unimpeachable evidence---Held, that prosecution version suffered from material improbabilities and could not safely sustain conviction on capital charge. (b) Criminal trial---Identification parade---Evidentiary value---Joint identification parade of multiple accused---Effect---Identification parade in the present case was not conducted through injured witnesses, but through two alleged eyewitnesses, and that too jointly in respect of multiple accused---It is a settled rule that each accused is to be put to identification separately and a joint identification parade is unsafe, unreliable and has consistently been disapproved by the Supreme Court---Such defective identification proceedings lost their corroborative value and could not be safely relied upon for maintaining conviction. Cited cases: Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189); Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142); Ziaullah alias Jaji v. The State (2008 SCMR 1210); Bacha Zeb v. The State (2010 SCMR 1189); Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537). (c) Criminal trial---Identification parade---Prior disclosure of identity of accused to police---Effect---Appellants had already been arrested in another criminal case and were in judicial custody when, according to the prosecution itself, they allegedly disclosed involvement in the present occurrence and were thereafter formally arrested in this case---Where identity of accused already stands disclosed to police before holding of identification parade, sanctity and evidentiary worth of such parade becomes highly doubtful---Held, that identification evidence so procured had lost legal significance as corroborative evidence. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat / criminal jurisprudence principles---Disclosure by accused in another case---Acquittal in that case---Effect---Appellants had allegedly been linked with the present occurrence through disclosures made by them in FIR No.73 dated 24.04.2010, but in that very case they had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2022---In such circumstances, the alleged disclosure lost legal weight and could not validly connect the appellants with the present crime---Prosecution further failed to produce any independent direct or circumstantial evidence reasonably connecting the appellants with commission of the offence. (e) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Where prosecution evidence is afflicted with material inconsistencies, inherent improbabilities and defects going to the root of the case, benefit of doubt must be extended to accused---Such benefit is not a matter of grace or concession but a matter of right---Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient to dislodge prosecution case---Held, that Courts below failed to properly notice serious infirmities in prosecution evidence and thereby fell into error in maintaining conviction and death sentence. Appeal was allowed, convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court and maintained by the High Court were set aside, appellants were acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt, and were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 01.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. A. No. 62 of 2011 and S.C.R. No. 01-T of 2011). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 120-B, 302, 324, 435 & 436---Criminal conspiracy, qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing damage to property---Re-appraisal of evidence---Suicide bombing---Location of prosecution witnesses--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was alleged to be a suicide bomber wearing explosive jacket and was apprehended from the place of occurrence where two suicide bombers had already detonated themselves---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---Validity---Suicide bomber, who had detonated explosives, had also used pellets which had caused severe injuries to several innocent victims in a large radius---There was no explanation as to how complainant and six officials accompanying him, and the accused and two unidentified co-accused remained unharmed---Presence of witnesses at crime scene was not proved through unimpeachable evidence, nor the fact that accused was apprehended in the manner as was deposed by prosecution witnesses---Accused and complainant, who were 30 paces from the suicide bomber when the explosion took place, could not remain unscathed, and in such a situation of extreme distress and commotion, no one could identify or apprehend another person wearing a jacket laden with explosives---It was an incident in which impact and its harm was seen much further than thirty paces---Prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to establish that accused was a member of proscribed organization or that he was motivated by or was working for a terrorist group---Prosecution failed to discharge its obligation of proving guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences handed down by Trial Court and upheld by High Court and acquitted the accused from all charges framed against him by extending benefit of doubt to him as of right---Appeal was allowed. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 and Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749 rel. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt---Criminal jurisprudence—Prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Appellant convicted for terrorism-related offenses, including murder, under Sections 120-B, 302, 324, 435, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860—Trial Court and High Court convicted and sentenced appellant to death—Prosecution’s case hinged on circumstantial and testimonial evidence—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt through unimpeachable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence—Where a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right, not as a matter of concession—Reliance placed on Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1948), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731), Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490), Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).(b) Terrorism Offenses – Unproven Terrorist Affiliation---Anti-Terrorism laws—Prosecution’s failure to establish appellant’s affiliation with a terrorist group—No evidence presented to prove that appellant was a member of a proscribed organization or had a terrorist motive—Explosives allegedly recovered from a location in Akora Khattak were not conclusively linked to appellant—Held, mere allegations of terrorism without substantive evidence are insufficient for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749).(c) Forensic Evidence – Unreliable Explosive Analysis---Evidentiary standards—Explosive analysis and forensic examination—Whether District Civil Defence report on explosive materials was reliable—Prosecution failed to send the alleged suicide jacket and grenades for analysis to a recognized forensic laboratory—No evidence on record to establish that District Civil Defence, Rawalpindi, had the expertise or facilities to conclusively examine explosives—Held, forensic evidence must be conducted by a legally recognized forensic institution to be admissible—Reliance placed on Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146).(d) Contradictions in Prosecution’s Case – Witness Testimony---Inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative—Appellant allegedly apprehended at the crime scene wearing a live suicide jacket and holding a hand grenade—Prosecution witnesses failed to explain how the jacket was removed and defused in the absence of trained personnel—No documentary proof provided to confirm that prosecution witnesses were on duty at the crime scene—Testimonies of key witnesses were contradictory regarding the crime report's registration, timing, and sequence of events—Held, inconsistencies in testimony raise serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s claims—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731).(e) Failure to Establish Appellant’s Role in Terror Attack---Circumstantial evidence—Appellant allegedly apprehended after two suicide bombers detonated explosives, killing 69 people—Prosecution failed to prove that appellant attempted to detonate explosives or posed an imminent threat—Crime scene dynamics suggested that immediate apprehension of an individual wearing an explosive vest, without sustaining injuries, was improbable—Held, mere presence at the crime scene does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2021 allowed – Conviction set aside.Death sentence not confirmed – Appellant acquitted of all charges.Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant as of right.

Summary: Background: The accused-petitioner was apprehended following the registration of FIR No. 231/2022 on December 11, 2022, under sections 302, 435, 147, 148, 149, 109 APC, and 15(2) of the Arms Act. The bail application of the accused-petitioner was rejected by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Samahni, on March 30, 2023, leading to this revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to bail considering the nature of the accusations and the evidence presented. 2- Whether the contradictions in the FIR and the police report (challan) justify granting bail to the accused-petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court accepted the revision petition, granting bail to the accused-petitioner. Key points of the court's reasoning include: The petitioner was shown as innocent in the incomplete challan dated March 24, 2023. Major contradictions between the role of the accused in the FIR and the investigation officer's version in the challan brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment was reinforced. The court noted that the matter required further probe/inquiry and emphasized that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be extended to the accused. ----Citations/Precedents: 2014 YLR 200 2014 P Cr.LJ 658 PLD 1991 AJ&K 39 2005 SCR 29 2014 SCMR 27 2017 MLD 836 PLJ 2007 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 108 1994 SCR 212 PLD 1996 SC 1 2008 YLR 2717 PLD 1995 SC 34 PLD 2017 SC 733 PLD 2022 Islamabad 371

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 200, 203, 435 & 439---Private complaint, dismissal of---Revision against order of Judicial Magistrate---Maintainability---Procedure---Held, order having been passed under S.203, Cr.P.C., whereby direct complaint had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate without framing a charge and trial, it could not be treated as acquittal of the accused/respondents---Order under S.203 Cr.P.C, being an order passed by a court inferior to the Court of Session, the propriety demanded that the same should first be examined by the Sessions Judge for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the said order passed by the Magistrate who was covered by the explanation given at the bottom of S.435, Cr.P.C.---Revision before the High Court being without exhausting the remedy available to the applicant was not maintainable---Matter was sent to the Sessions Judge for a just and fair decision on the grievance of the applicant---Revision application was thus disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Impugned order was administrative/supervisory in nature, could not be challenged u/s 435, 439 Cr.P.C but could be challenged u/s 561-A Cr.P.C --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------Ss.22-A, 435, 439 & 561-A---Comp-lainants (respondents) filed application under section22-A, Cr.P.C against the accused persons (petitioner) alleging that the latter tried to illegallydispossess the complainants from their mines---Justice of Peace gave directions to theTehsildar concerned to lodge an F.I.R. against the accused---Validity---Survey report of theMines and Minerals Authority revealed that the accused persons did not possess anyprospecting licence or mining lease from the Authority and had illegally worked in the areagranted to the complainant---Impugned order had been passed by the Justice of Peace underS.22-A, Cr.P.C, which order was administrative/supervisory in nature and could not bechallenged by the accused persons under the petition under Ss. 435 & 439, Cr.P.C, but samecould be challenged under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C---Revision petition was dismissed, incircumstances.