Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 202 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337, 338 & 339---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform, common intention---Pardon to the accused---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant---Widow of the deceased was also implicated in the case as one of the accused---Prosecution’s request qua producing widow of deceased/accused as a prosecution witness in the trial was allowed---Validity---Provision of S.337, Cr.P.C., described that the Court could tender pardon to the accused at any stage of the trial before the judgment was passed with a purpose of obtaining evidence and in the present case it had been done by the Trial Court---However, it was essential that accused/widow of deceased should have expressed her free consent and willingness to become approver in response to a request made by the complainant/ prosecution or by the Court itself, however, the impugned order was completely silent about the factum that whether widow of deceased (accused facing trial) had ever been given an option to exercise her discretion to become an approver and thereby agreed to record her statement with her free will and consent against her other principal and co-accused---In absence whereof, the requirement of the relevant Sections of law could not be considered to have been duly and legally fulfilled---In the present case, the complainant/son/legal heir of the deceased made request for production of widow of deceased/accused as prosecution witness through the Prosecutor coupled with the factum that she had been charged only under Ss.201/202, P.P.C, therefore, the bar contained in Ss.337 & 338, P.P.C., that no person shall be tendered pardon who was involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl without permission of the victim or, as the case may be, of the heirs of the victim, did not apply to the present case---However, admittedly before the Trial Court neither any application by the accused facing trial qua grant of pardon containing an undertaking that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of deceased was moved nor her consent in black and white floated upon the surface of the available record to show that she voluntarily opted to become an accomplice/approver against her co-accused (including petitioner herein) nor any Section of law could be quoted by the Trial Court in the impugned order under which accused facing trial was allowed to be produced as a prosecution witness because in case she was granted/tendered pardon, the same must be preceded by a condition that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of the deceased and in case she failed to do so, she had to bear legal consequences thereof in light of S.339, Cr.P.C., etc.---Moreover, by virtue of Art.13 of the Constitution, an accused person could not be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself---Criminal revision petition was allowed, accordingly. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 Sc 53 rel. Malik Haider Ali for Petitioner. Sardar Basharat Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State. Aqeel-ur-Rehman Khan Jadoon for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34, 202 — Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 — Bail, grant of — Post-arrest bail — Tentative assessment — Allegation of murder and concealment of dead body — No specific role attributed to petitioner in FIR — No recovery made from him — Co-accused (petitioner’s brother) confessed and led to recovery of body and weapon — No incriminating statement by other co-accused (petitioner’s father) against petitioner — Held, allegation against petitioner appears limited to concealment of offence, punishable under S. 202, P.P.C., which does not fall within prohibitory clause — Bail granted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(1), 497(2) — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 202 — Bail, grant of — Further inquiry — Where material collected during investigation does not directly implicate accused in commission of murder, and alleged role is only that of concealment — Offence not falling within prohibitory clause — Accused entitled to bail as matter requires further inquiry — Long incarceration pre-trial without substantive evidence not warranted. Rel. 2024 PCr.LJ 1305 & 2021 YLR 347 ref. Disposition: Petition allowed — Post-arrest bail granted to petitioner on furnishing surety of Rs. 500,000 with two solvent sureties — Trial Court directed to decide matter uninfluenced by observations made in bail order.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34 & 202—Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 —Bail—Post-arrest—Scope—No specific role assigned—Offence not falling under prohibitory clause— Accused was nominated in FIR for murder but no specific role was attributed to him—No incriminating article recovered from his possession—The weapon of offence and recovery of the deceased's body were attributed to co-accused Israr Ahmad, on whose pointation both recoveries were made—Held, even though accused was named in FIR, the only tentative role possibly attributable was concealment under S.202, P.P.C., which carries a maximum sentence of six months and does not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—No evidence of direct involvement or participation in the murder—Bail allowed. Cited Cases: • 2024 PCr.LJ 1305 • 2021 YLR 347 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497—Principles for grant of bail—Tentative assessment— Court held that bail decisions must rest upon tentative assessment of material collected during investigation—In present case, no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting petitioner with commission of murder—Father of petitioner, who was a co-accused, exonerated him in his S.161, Cr.P.C. statement and implicated another co-accused—Prosecution evidence failed to meet the threshold required to deny bail—Held, liberty of accused cannot be curtailed indefinitely in absence of cogent material. Held, bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds. (c) Criminal Trial—Multiple accused—Assigning distinct roles—Scope— Where multiple accused are charged in a serious offence like murder, the prosecution must clearly assign specific roles to each—Mere joint nomination in FIR without clear attribution is insufficient—In present case, petitioner’s role was vague and not corroborated by recovery or statements—Held, court must distinguish between principal offender and others, especially when co-accused’s confession and recoveries shift culpability. Principle: In serious criminal cases, courts must assess individual liability rather than collective implication. Bail granted.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979): ----S. 17(4) Harrabah---Conviction and sentence under section 17(4) of the Ordinance and sections 412/202, P.P.C.---Benefit of doubt---Appellants were convicted for Harrabah and sentenced to life imprisonment; however, their conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple material discrepancies, procedural irregularities, and unreliable evidence. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 164 & 364---Statements of witnesses and confessional statements of accused---Procedural flaws rendering evidence inadmissible---Statements under section 164 of the Code were recorded without following mandatory procedures, including the presence of the accused and their right to cross-examine witnesses. Confessional statements of appellants were deemed involuntary, vague, and recorded without proper safeguards under sections 164 and 364 of the Code. Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713). (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984): ----Art. 129(g)---Adverse inference---Failure to examine material witnesses or produce essential documentary evidence---Prosecution abandoned material witnesses without justification and failed to explain significant procedural delays and irregularities. Adverse inference was drawn under Art. 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Reliance placed on Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486). (d) Criminal Evidence---Reliability and corroboration: ----Recovery of crime weapons and other items---Flaws in safe custody and transmission---Alleged recoveries of pistols, mobile phones, and snatched currency notes were not corroborated by credible evidence. Prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of evidence, and recovery memos lacked essential details. FSL reports were deemed unreliable due to procedural irregularities. (e) Burden of Proof---Standard of evidence in criminal cases: ----Reasonable doubt---Prosecution's failure to meet its burden---Conviction cannot be based on conjectures or probabilities---Any single infirmity creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Reliance placed on Ghulam Qadir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (f) Disposition: ----Appeal allowed---Conviction and sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants under section 17(4) of the Ordinance and sections 412/202, P.P.C., were set aside due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities. Appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.01-I of 2023 and Criminal Revision No.01-I of 2023 were dismissed. -----Cited Cases Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713) Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Ghulam Qadir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involved two criminal appeals originating from a single judgment passed by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Haveli, Kahutta. The case centered on the alleged murder of Yasir Mahmood, who was reported missing on April 3, 2016, and later found dead. The prosecution claimed that the deceased had illicit relations with one of the accused, Musarat Aziz, and was killed by her brother, Muhammad Akbar, and other co-accused when they found Yasir in a compromising position. The trial court convicted Muhammad Akbar under sections 302(c), 201, and 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), sentencing him to various terms of imprisonment, while the other accused were acquitted. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction of Muhammad Akbar was based on sufficient and credible circumstantial evidence. 2- Whether the acquittal of the other co-accused persons was justified. 3- Whether the sentence awarded to Muhammad Akbar should be enhanced to a death penalty as requested by the complainant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking Muhammad Akbar and the other accused to the alleged crime. The court noted several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case, including the lack of a credible connection between the deceased and Musarat Aziz, dubious recovery of evidence, and unconvincing testimonies regarding the alleged murder weapon. The court emphasized that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this instance. The court accepted the appeal of Muhammad Akbar, acquitting him of all charges and ordering his immediate release. The appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of Muhammad Akbar's sentence and conviction of the other accused was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: 2014 SCR 1441 - Circumstantial evidence must be scrutinized carefully, and if any link is missing, conviction cannot be upheld. 2018 SCMR 772 - Simple recovery of a weapon without corroborative evidence (like a forensic report) is insufficient for conviction. 2015 SCR 533 - Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, with no missing links, to justify conviction. 2013 SCR 374 - Circumstantial evidence must leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused. 2008 SCR 1 - Discrepancies between medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative can create reasonable doubt. 2009 SCR 432 - Circumstantial evidence must exclude any hypothesis of innocence. 2005 SCR 422 - Benefit of even the slightest doubt should go to the accused. 1992 SCR 155 - Recovery must be witnessed by independent, credible witnesses.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The appellant, Abdul Qayoom, along with others, was being tried for offences under sections 302, 342, 147, 148, 149, 201, 202, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) by the District Criminal Court, Haveli Kahuta.The occurrence took place on 28th August 2013, involving the murder of two individuals. The appellant was arrested on 9th September 2013.The trial faced significant delays, with only 7 out of 33 witnesses' statements recorded over two years.The appellant filed for bail citing statutory delays exceeding two years. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to a revision petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Shariat Court, which was partially accepted?granting bail to another accused, Muhammad Shabir, but not to Abdul Qayoom, labeling him a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal.----Issues:Whether Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail on the ground of statutory delays in the trial.Whether Abdul Qayoom can be classified as a "dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal" to deny him bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail.The Court found that the appellant was entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., as the trial had not concluded within two years and there was no delay attributable to him.The Shariat Court's designation of Qayoom as a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal lacked substantiated evidence. The case against Qayoom was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily a delayed statement from a single witness, which was not deemed sufficient to label him as such.Previous case law indicated that to declare someone a hardened criminal, there must be substantive evidence considering the motive, role, and societal impact, which was not adequately presented in Qayoom's case. The appeal was accepted. The judgment of the Shariat Court was set aside, and Qayoom was ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnished a bail bond amounting to one million rupees with two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount.----Citations/Precedents:Irfan & another vs. State through Advocate-General and another (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2013, decided on 24.09.2013)Farzana Imtiaz vs. Tariq Hussain and another (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2012, decided on 19.7.2013)Muhammad Siddique vs. Muhammad Behram and another [1998 SCR 146]Muhammad Aziz vs. the State [2000 SCR 1]Moundar vs. The State [PLD 1990 SC 934]

Summary: (a) Sentence-Separate, under Ss. 302 and 302/149 P. P. C.-Former in respect of one murder and latter in. respect of the same murder and two other murders committed along with other accused in the same transaction-Held, unobjectionable, in the absence of prejudice to accused, separate sentence for all three murders instead of for only two being the result of inadvertence. The appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of N under section.202 P. P. C. and again to transportation for life under section 302/149 for the murders of same N and in addition for that of W and R committed along with others in the course of same transaction. Held, that the different sentences awarded to the appellant for the murder of N appeared to he due to inadvertence. The sentence of transportation for life under section 302/149, so far as the appellant was concerned, should have been only with reference to the murder of W and R and not of N, W and R. The error, however had not caused any prejudice to the appellant, since there could be no objection to his sentence of transportation for life for the offence of murdering W and R in addition to the sentence of death for the murder of N. (Akram d.) (b) Sentence-Death-Reduction on equitable grounds-No function of Federal Court-Prerogative of Government.