Summary: Opinion of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 186---Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope, nature and effect---President of Pakistan may seek opinion of Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance---Advisory jurisdiction, though not deciding a lis between parties in the ordinary sense, is a solemn constitutional jurisdiction requiring due deliberation, evaluation of arguments and formulation of opinion by the Court---Opinion rendered in Presidential Reference is not strictly binding like an inter-partes judgment, but carries significant credence, persuasive value and moral authority, and ought to be respected by constitutional organs---Questions referred to Supreme Court should not be ambiguous, indeterminate or incapable of formulation of opinion---Supreme Court is empowered to consider whether reference raises a constitutional question of public importance and to answer it accordingly. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A & 186---Presidential Reference concerning trial of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto---Fair trial and due process---Larger Bench had opined that proceedings of trial by Lahore High Court and appeal before Supreme Court did not meet requirements of fundamental right to fair trial and due process enshrined in Arts. 4 and 9 of the Constitution and later expressly guaranteed under Art.10-A---Although conviction had attained finality after dismissal of review petition, advisory jurisdiction was invoked to examine grave blemishes and glitches in the murder trial which had damaged public confidence in fairness of proceedings---Reference was maintainable to the extent of constitutional questions relating to fair trial, due process and administration of justice. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 156, 160, 169, 170 & 173---Investigation and reinvestigation---Closed case---Effect---Police are required to conduct investigation impartially and collect evidence from all possible angles, including material favourable to accused---If evidence is insufficient, Investigating Officer may release accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; if sufficient evidence exists, report is to be submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C.---After first investigation in murder case had been closed and cancellation report submitted before Magistrate, matter was resurrected years later without complaint by legal heirs or any aggrieved person and without lawful justification---No independent reasoning or cogent justification was available for reinvestigation---Reinvestigation must not be routinely ordered to favour influential persons or punish non-influential persons; if used improperly, it becomes a dangerous tool undermining integrity of criminal justice system and poses serious threat to administration of justice. Cited Cases: • Noor Mohd Holt Ltd. v. Department of Trade and others 1978 3 All ER 280 • Wiseman v. Borneman 1971 AC 297 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 28, 190 & 526---Transfer of murder trial from Court of Sessions to High Court---Jurisdiction and procedure---Offence under S.302, PPC is ordinarily triable by Court of Sessions, while High Court may try such case only when lawfully transferred or otherwise within jurisdiction---Transfer of case from Sessions Court to Lahore High Court was allowed in slipshod manner on very next day after Sessions Judge framed charge, without notice to accused, without considering statutory parameters and without judicially examining whether transfer was necessary for ends of justice---Transfer was not sought for convenience or safety but had effect of depriving accused of ordinary forum and ordinary first appellate scrutiny---Such hurried transfer raised serious concerns regarding fairness and due process. (e) Administration of justice---- ----Bias---Judicial impartiality---Fair trial---Test for bias---Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done---A Judge must decide cases according to law and conscience without fear, favour, affection, pressure, annoyance or external influence---Where circumstances create a reasonable apprehension in mind of prudent person that Judge may not act with complete impartiality, the proceedings are tainted---Bias may be personal, pecuniary, official, political, or arise from conduct showing prejudice, hostility, pressure or predisposition---In the murder trial under consideration, allegations of bias, pressure, annoyance with counsel and unusual haste created circumstances affecting appearance and substance of fair trial. Cited Cases: • Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1405 • R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 KB 256 • Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors 1852 3 HLC 759 • Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon 1969 1 QB 577 • R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte No.2 1999 1 WLR 876 • Porter v. Magill 2002 2 AC 357 • Ali Asad Zaidi v. The State PLD 2001 SC 663 • State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar AIR 2013 SC 364 (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A---Doctrine of natural justice and due process---Criminal trial---Presumption of innocence---Accused as favourite child of law---In every criminal trial, burden lies on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused is not to be treated as an unfavourable child of law but remains entitled to all safeguards of fair trial---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence must be independent, impartial and free from bias or prejudice---Personal bias, preconceived mind or jaundiced eye of Judge tarnishes fairness of trial and undermines equal protection of law---No person can be condemned without fair opportunity to explain, contest and defend---Fair trial and due process are sacred obligations for every Court and tribunal. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shahzad 2024 SCMR 51 • Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181 • Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 • Umar Khan v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745 • Capital Development Authority v. Sabir Hussain 2023 SCMR 627 • Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135 • Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1185 • Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Zia Muhammad 2023 SCMR 1583 (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Approver/accomplice evidence---Evidentiary value---Corroboration---Evidence of an approver is an acid test for Court; Court must examine whether such testimony is trustworthy and supported by independent reliable corroboration---An accomplice is generally unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars---Approver may be competent witness, but rule of prudence demands great care and caution before relying upon such testimony, particularly in capital cases---Corroboration must not be merely formal but must connect accused with commission of offence through independent and reliable evidence. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 374 & 376---Confirmation of death sentence---Trial by High Court in original criminal jurisdiction---Where death sentence is awarded by Court of Sessions, proceedings are submitted to High Court for confirmation under S.374, Cr.P.C., and sentence cannot be executed unless confirmed---However, where High Court itself conducts murder trial and convicts accused under original jurisdiction, no further confirmation by a larger bench of High Court is required; rather remedy lies by appeal before Supreme Court under Art.185 of the Constitution---In such situation, constitutional and appellate scrutiny by Supreme Court assumes heightened importance. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185---Right of appeal---Murder trial conducted by High Court---Denial of ordinary appellate forum---Where murder trial is conducted by Court of Sessions, convict ordinarily has appeal before High Court and further remedy before Supreme Court---But where High Court withdraws case and tries it itself, accused is deprived of ordinary first appellate forum and can approach Supreme Court directly---Supreme Court, in such cases, should ordinarily be inclined to grant leave and examine case carefully to ensure safe administration of criminal justice, especially where death sentence is involved---In the case of Mr. Bhutto, direct appeal before Supreme Court after trial by High Court left no ordinary appellate reappraisal by High Court. (j) Media interviews and post-retirement disclosures---- ----Judicial conduct---Bias and public confidence---Subsequent interviews of former Judge suggesting pressure, annoyance with defence counsel, and external atmosphere surrounding proceedings could not by themselves unsettle a final judicial decision, but they were relevant in understanding cumulative circumstances showing fair trial concerns---Such disclosures, read with record of proceedings, corroborated apprehension that trial and appeal were not conducted in atmosphere required by constitutional guarantees of due process and impartial justice. (k) Sentence---- ----Death penalty---Mitigating circumstances---Role of Judge---Judge must not be influenced by appeasement, flattery, malice, annoyance with counsel, or emotional pressure while deciding punishment---Criminal Court retains power to consider mitigating circumstances and impose lesser sentence where justice so demands---In murder cases before Supreme Court, Court may confirm death sentence, alter it to life imprisonment, or grant acquittal depending on record---In Bhutto review proceedings, submission seeking commutation rather than acquittal was recorded, but Court still had power to consider whether punishment could be altered---On independent appraisal of record and peculiar circumstances, death sentence was not safe to maintain; life imprisonment would have met ends of justice. Cited Case: • Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741 (l) Administration of justice---- ----Delay in answering Presidential Reference---Effect---Reference was answered after nearly thirteen years---Delay in adjudication undermines confidence in justice system, as justice delayed is justice denied---Courts must decide matters within reasonable time because prolonged pendency can prejudice rights of parties and create possibility of injustice---Proper balance in Court docket is necessary so that powerful or constitutionally significant matters do not unjustly eclipse other important matters, yet matters raising fundamental fairness concerns are not left unanswered. (m) Islamic jurisprudence---- ----Doctrine of repentance---Question framed in Presidential Reference---No opinion by larger Bench---One question in Reference sought opinion regarding doctrine of repentance under Islamic jurisprudence, but no opinion was rendered by Supreme Court on that question---Where trial itself was found to have been unfair and proceedings below were tainted by denial of fair trial and due process, unresolved question of repentance remained unanswered and did not alter conclusion regarding constitutional infirmities in trial process. (n) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 186---Reporting of opinion to President---After recording opinion on questions arising from Reference, office was directed to report opinion through proper channel to worthy President of Pakistan in terms of Art.186 of the Constitution. Disposition: Opinion was rendered in Reference No.01/2011 under Art.186 of the Constitution; Supreme Court, through the larger Bench, had already opined that the trial of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and appellate proceedings did not meet requirements of fair trial and due process under Arts.4 and 9 of the Constitution and later Art.10-A; Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, in his separate opinion, further examined advisory jurisdiction, reinvestigation, transfer of trial to High Court, bias, natural justice, approver evidence, confirmation of death sentence, right of appeal, media interviews, mitigating circumstances and doctrine of repentance; office was directed to report the opinion to the President of Pakistan through proper channel.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 302(b) & S. 452, read with S. 374, Cr.P.C. Conviction on indivisible, tainted evidence where co-accused with identical role stood acquitted—Rule of consistency—Held, on the same set of prosecution evidence disbelieved qua co-accused Asghar (attributed a head blow with an axe greater in dimension than that ascribed to the appellant), the courts below could not, without cogent distinction or independent corroboration, maintain appellant’s conviction under S. 302(b), PPC; conviction under S. 452 had already been set aside by the High Court—Findings of acquittal of co-accused having attained finality, parity in treatment was required—Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC set aside. (b) Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding of best evidence—Adverse inference. Two closely-related female eyewitnesses (named later as injured) were abandoned without justification; their absence, coupled with unexplained late medical examination of PW-7, warranted an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) against the prosecution version—Prosecution thus failed to produce the best available evidence, creating serious doubt in its case. (c) Criminal trial—Unnatural conduct—Presence of witness doubtful—Benefit of doubt. Complainant-father, claiming to have witnessed armed assailants drag his son out and inflict fatal head injuries, neither intervened nor suffered any injury—Such passivity was found inconsistent with ordinary human conduct; presence held doubtful—Where presence of a star witness is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (d) Criminal trial—Motive—Failure to prove. Alleged motive based on prior FIR by the deceased against the accused was expressly disbelieved by the courts below; with motive out of the case and no other reliable corroboration, prosecution case further weakened. (e) Criminal trial—Recovery—Inconsequential recovery. Recovery of hatchet on appellant’s pointation held devoid of evidentiary value as the weapon was unstained with blood; such recovery could not provide the missing corroboration. (f) Criminal trial—“Sifting the grain from the chaff”—Limits—“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” Court reaffirmed that while rigid application of “falsus in uno…” is eschewed, selective reliance (sifting) must be sparing and only where the truthful part is clearly distinguishable and independently corroborated—It cannot be used to salvage a conviction from the same inseparable, discredited evidence already rejected for identically-placed co-accused, nor to compensate for investigative or prosecutorial lapses—Standard of proof must remain beyond reasonable doubt. Cited cases: • Lal Khan v. The State, 2006 SCMR 1846 • Riaz Ahmed v. The State, 2010 SCMR 846 • Abdul Qadeer v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1146 • Riasat Ali v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1224 • Sher Afzal v. The State, Crim. Apps. No. 229 & 230 of 2021 (25.02.2025). Disposition—Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC set aside; appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case—Connected Criminal Petition for enhancement dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 354 & 452 — Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A, 382-B & 374 Murder, criminal trespass, and assault with intent to outrage modesty — Allegation of fatal assault by petitioner with a Danda, followed by trespass and physical assault upon women — Initial FIR registered under Ss. 324, 354 & 452, PPC; subsequently converted to S. 302 PPC after victim’s death — Conviction recorded by Trial Court under all charges; sentence of death under S. 302(b), PPC altered to life imprisonment by High Court — Supreme Court found multiple material doubts in the prosecution’s case — Discrepancy between complainant's statement about accomplices and absence of co-accused — Delay of over 13 hours in lodging FIR without plausible explanation — Medical evidence found inconsistent with prosecution's version of injury and manner — Prosecution failed to prove chain of events conclusively — Conviction set aside and benefit of doubt extended — Petitioner acquitted of all charges. Disposition: Appeal allowed — Judgment of High Court set aside — Petitioner acquitted of all charges under Ss. 302(b), 354 & 452, PPC — To be released if not required in any other case. (b) Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Delay in FIR — Credibility of Witnesses Delay of 13 hours and 20 minutes in FIR without sufficient justification — Supplementary statement used to introduce two eyewitnesses whose names were not in original FIR — Such delay and subsequent additions deemed to cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version — Supreme Court observed that if the witnesses had actually been present, their names would have been disclosed at the earliest — Testimony of complainant held to be hearsay in parts, weakening its evidentiary value — Introduction of key witnesses after substantial delay found to affect reliability and truthfulness of entire narrative. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Hassan v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 • Tariq Parvez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 • Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857 (c) Criminal Trial — Motive — Vague and Unsubstantiated Motive Weakening Prosecution Case Prosecution claimed dispute over house as motive — No documentary evidence or independent testimony produced to substantiate existence or intensity of dispute — Mere assertion of motive unsupported by credible material held insufficient — High Court also noted absence of corroboration — Inconsistent or vague motive considered inadequate to support conviction. Held: Failure to prove motive casts doubt on prosecution's narrative — Where motive is set up but not established, benefit must go to accused.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 34, 109----Qatl-e-amd (Murder)----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal----The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Razia Bibi, while two co-accused were acquitted----The prosecution relied on the statements of two related eyewitnesses, but their presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and postmortem examination----Material contradictions and improvements in witnesses’ statements, absence of independent corroboration, and a failed motive weakened the prosecution’s case----Held, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal----Reliance placed on Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507).(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 374----Murder reference----Non-confirmation of death sentence----Delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR despite the police station being nearby created suspicion regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene----Eyewitnesses’ testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions, dishonest improvements, and failure to explain key facts regarding their movements----The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the nature of injuries and the distance of fire shots----Held, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, and the death sentence was not confirmed----Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Evidence Law--------Principles of appreciation of evidence----Interested and related witnesses----Held, testimony of interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care and caution, requiring independent corroboration----Prosecution’s reliance on chance witnesses without a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene rendered their evidence suspect----The complainant failed to provide any independent evidence, and an eyewitness was deliberately withheld, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s case----Reliance placed on Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2021 SCMR 325).(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 342----Examination of accused----Right of defence----Appellant neither produced any witness in his defence nor opted to testify under oath, yet the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt----Held, burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere non-production of defence evidence does not weaken the appellant’s right to acquittal if the prosecution evidence is unreliable----Reliance placed on Muhammad Idrees v. The State (2021 SCMR 612).(e) Criminal Law--------Delay in FIR and postmortem----Effect on prosecution case----The unexplained delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR and nine hours in conducting the postmortem examination raised suspicion of afterthought and deliberation by the complainant party----Held, such delays indicate possible fabrication and improvement of prosecution’s case, making the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable----Reliance placed on Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCMR 1190).(f) Criminal Law--------Recovery of weapon of offence----Corroborative evidence----Held, recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused is only corroborative in nature and cannot serve as sole proof of guilt in the absence of reliable direct evidence----Even though the recovered pistol matched the crime empties per PFSA report, the discredited ocular account rendered the recovery ineffective to sustain conviction----Reliance placed on Noor Muhammad v. The State (2010 SCMR 97).(g) Acquittal of Co-Accused----Benefit of doubt----The complainant filed a petition against the acquittal of co-accused for abetment, but no independent evidence supported their involvement----The prosecution failed to establish motive, and the alleged abetment was found to be an afterthought introduced in a private complaint to strengthen the case----Held, the acquittal of co-accused was justified and required no interference----Reliance placed on Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567).----- Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2022 allowed – Conviction and death sentence of Shahid alias Shahidi set aside, and he was acquitted.Murder Reference No. 234 of 2021 answered in the negative – Death sentence not confirmed.Criminal PSLA No. 846 of 2022 dismissed – No grounds for interference in the acquittal of co-accused Nazim Hussain and Ibrahim.Criminal Revision No. 847 of 2022 dismissed – No justification for enhancement of compensation amount.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 302(b)Conviction for murder—Solitary fatal shot—Sentence of death converted to imprisonment for life—Accused was charged with causing death of the deceased by inflicting two firearm injuries, one of which proved fatal—Medical evidence confirmed only one fatal firearm injury on the neck and a simple grazing wound on the arm—Evidence of injured eye-witness and other ocular witnesses found confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence—Although presence of injured witness reinforced prosecution version, no extraordinary circumstances were present to justify capital punishment—Held, single shot causing death is an accepted mitigating circumstance justifying conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment—Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.Rehmat Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 2034; Muhammad Anwar v. State 2011 PCrLJ 289; Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582; Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu v. The State 2014 SCMR 1034 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 374 & 382-BDeath reference—Scope—Appellate court while deciding murder reference under S. 374, Cr.P.C., commuted death sentence to life imprisonment—Held, even slightest mitigating circumstance may justify lesser sentence—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. also extended to the appellant—Death sentence not confirmed.(c) Evidence Act (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984):----Art. 40Recovery of weapon of offence—Admissibility—Pistol recovered on disclosure by accused under custody—Crime empties collected from scene matched with recovered pistol—Recovery proceedings though not witnessed by a private person—Held, recovery admissible and relevant under Art. 40 QSO—Absence of private witness not fatal—Provides corroboration to prosecution case.Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 ref.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 302(b)—Proof of motiveLand dispute—Accused sought to unlawfully possess land owned by widow—Deceased, a local councillor, was supporting widow’s legal rights—Pending civil litigation and documents substantiating motive produced by prosecution—Held, motive proved through oral and documentary evidence—Accused's version of lawful possession and self-defence found false and introduced belatedly—Burden under Art. 121 QSO not discharged by accused.(e) Criminal trial:----Ocular testimony—Credibility of injured witnessPresence of injured witness—Weight of testimony—Injured eye-witness had firearm entry wound confirmed by medical evidence—Trial court’s partial disbelief of testimony regarding co-accused not sufficient to discredit entire version—Eye-witness account corroborated by other witnesses and forensic evidence—Held, testimony of injured witness carries inherent credibility.Saleem Zada v. The State 2019 SCMR 1309 ref.(f) Criminal trial:----Self-defence—Plea introduced belatedlyPlea of self-defence raised for first time during trial—No such claim made during initial investigation or pre-trial bail proceedings—Only two empties recovered despite claim of crossfire—Land possession documents disproved accused’s claim of lawful occupation—Held, plea of self-defence not proved and introduced merely as afterthought—Burden under Art. 121 QSO not discharged.Mian Muhammad Ajmal v. Abdul Aziz PLJ 2004 SC 642 ref.----Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 78420-J of 2019 dismissed with modification—Conviction upheld, death sentence under S. 302(b), PPC commuted to imprisonment for life with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.—Murder Reference No. 308 of 2019 answered in negative—Death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): —Ss. 364, 374—Confessional statement—Validity—Death sentence confirmation—Legal and procedural defects in the confession statement—Effect. The accused was arrested on 25.06.2004, and the confessional statement was recorded the following day. The confession was written on a cyclostyled printed form, rather than in the Magistrate’s handwriting, in violation of the requirements under S. 364, Cr. P.C. Additionally, the Magistrate failed to provide a certificate explaining why he did not record the confession in his own handwriting. Further, no extra time was given to the accused to reflect before making the confession, and no examination was conducted to determine whether he was coerced or subjected to torture before confessing. Such procedural irregularities rendered the confessional statement unreliable and inadmissible in evidence. The failure to observe mandatory procedural safeguards cast serious doubt on the voluntariness and authenticity of the confession. (b) Evidence Law: —Recovery of weapon—Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report—Legality of evidence—Mere matching of empties with the recovered weapon not sufficient to convict an accused. The accused allegedly led the police to the location where the crime weapon was recovered. However, the weapon and empties were sent to the FSL together, which is contrary to established legal principles. The police procedure was flawed as it failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Furthermore, key prosecution witnesses admitted that the crime scene articles, including the empties and weapon, were not properly sealed in their presence, raising serious doubts about tampering. In such circumstances, the forensic evidence could not be relied upon as conclusive proof of guilt. (c) Criminal TrialL —Benefit of doubt—Prosecution’s failure to prove motive—Effect. No motive was attributed to the accused, and the prosecution failed to establish any prior enmity or dispute between the parties. The absence of motive significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court reaffirmed that motive is a double-edged weapon, and if the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, the benefit must go to the accused. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Hassan v. State (2024 SCMR 1427), which held that where the prosecution's evidence is doubtful, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Law of Evidence: —Testimony of witnesses—Hearsay evidence—Contradictions and improvements—Effect. Key prosecution witnesses provided contradictory statements. One witness (PW-6) admitted that he was not an eyewitness and merely relied on information from another person who was also not presented as a witness. Another prosecution witness (PW-7) stated that the accused confessed to him while traveling, but the alleged confession was not made before the police or a Magistrate. The contradictions in the depositions and the reliance on hearsay evidence rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable. (e) Criminal Law—Standard of Proof: —Presumption of innocence—Burden of proof on prosecution—Benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defense. Once a single loophole is observed in the prosecution’s case, the benefit must automatically go to the accused (Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019 SCMR 129)). Since the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was entitled to acquittal. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and death sentence set aside. Accused acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

Summary: Testimony of a child witness and its admissibility after conducting vior dire; Explanation of Locard's Principle of Exchange and importance of Deoxyribonucleic Asset ("DNA"); Effects of non-submission of buccal swabs of suspect with the PFSA for subsequent DNA comparison with the samples of the victim/deceased as well as non-conducting of DNA comparison of the crime weapon with buccal swabs of the victim/deceased to connect the same with the crime;(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(ii)---Qatl-e-amd---Injured eyewitness---Death sentence converted to imprisonment for life---Ocular account of incident was corroborated by medical evidence and remained unimpeached despite cross-examination---Injured child witness (PW-10) passed rationality test under Art. 3 & 17 of QSO, and competently deposed regarding murder of his mother by the accused---Prosecution proved its case beyond shadow of doubt---However, omission by investigating agency to submit buccal swabs of accused for DNA comparison and failure to link murder weapon with victim through DNA were considered extenuating circumstances warranting lesser sentence---Held, even a single mitigating circumstance suffices to justify conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment---Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence; Murder Reference answered in negative.----Cited Cases:• Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582• Ali Taj v. The State 2023 SCMR 900• Ansar v. The State 2023 SCMR 929• Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831• Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795• Muhammad Ijaz v. The State 2023 SCMR 1375(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 374---Death sentence---Confirmation reference---Scope---Where mitigating circumstances exist, including forensic lapses, the court may refrain from confirming death sentence---Failure of police to connect accused with scene of crime through DNA or properly explain discrepancy regarding firearm evidence undermined completeness of prosecution’s case for capital punishment---Held, conviction maintained but sentence modified to life imprisonment---Reference for confirmation of death sentence declined.(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984):----Arts. 3 & 17---Competency of child witness---Voir dire---Rationality test---Eight-year-old injured child witness found competent based on trial court’s questioning---Held, testimony of child witness found natural, consistent, and independently corroborated by complainant and another eyewitness---Such testimony can form valid basis for conviction when found trustworthy.----Cited Case:• Raja Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146**(d) Evidence---Ocular versus medical evidence---Discrepancy in injury count---Effect---Minor inconsistencies in number or location of injuries not fatal to prosecution case when ocular testimony is credible and corroborated---Medical evidence held to be corroborative, not conclusive, and cannot override trustworthy eyewitness account.----Cited Cases:• Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460• Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396• Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025**(e) Criminal trial---Prompt FIR---Presumption of truthfulness---Occurrence reported within 90 minutes of incident---Held, promptness in lodging FIR supports presence of complainant and injured witness at the scene, rules out fabrication or mistaken identity.----Cited Cases:• Shaheen Ijaz v. The State 2021 SCMR 500• Sheraz Asghar v. The State 1995 SCMR 1365• Zar Bahadur v. The State 1978 SCMR 136**(f) Forensic science---DNA evidence---Locard’s Principle of Exchange---Failure to collect or submit buccal swabs of accused for DNA matching with samples from crime scene---Held, such omission did not exonerate accused but constituted a mitigating factor affecting quantum of sentence---Court emphasized future need for rigorous adherence to forensic procedures by police and investigation teams.----Directive:Investigating agencies directed to ensure proper documentation, collection, and preservation of forensic evidence from crime scenes and suspects to strengthen judicial process.----Cited Reference:• Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• District Attorney’s Office v. William Osborne 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4536----Disposition:Appeal dismissed to extent of conviction but allowed to extent of sentence; Death sentence converted to life imprisonment. Murder Reference answered in negative.

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: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)----Qatl-i-Amd----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal of accused----Appreciation of evidence The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced to death for committing Qatl-i-Amd. Upon reappraisal of evidence, the court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The eyewitnesses were categorized as chance witnesses and failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene. The inconsistencies in their statements regarding the events and physical evidence, including contradictions in injury descriptions and the absence of corroborative forensic proof, cast serious doubts on their credibility. The prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of the weapon conclusively, as the empty shells and weapon were not sent for forensic examination promptly. Furthermore, the medical evidence, including the timing of rigor mortis and post-mortem findings, contradicted the prosecution's timeline of events. The prosecution's failure to produce credible motive evidence further weakened their case. The principle of benefit of the doubt was applied, as a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The accused was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt and ordered to be released if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 137) Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622) Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State (2017 SCMR 724) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736) Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2012 SCMR 419) Muhammad Arif v. The State (2019 SCMR 631) Amin Ali and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 103----Recovery of weapon----Non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions----Evidentiary value The recovery of the pistol from the appellant was disregarded due to the prosecution's failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery, violating Section 103, Cr.P.C. Additionally, the delay in sending the recovered weapon and empty shells for forensic analysis rendered the forensic evidence unreliable. Disposition: Recovery evidence discarded due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and delayed forensic examination. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) Muhammad Amin v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 2057) (c) Criminal Law----Motive----Failure to prove motive----Effect on prosecution case The prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive convincingly. No corroborative evidence was presented, and contradictions in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's narrative regarding the motive. A tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. Disposition: Motive evidence was disregarded due to contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. Cited Cases: Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021) (d) Administration of Justice ----Acquittal of co-accused----Double presumption of innocence----Principles of interference by higher courts The trial court's acquittal of co-accused was upheld. Courts should be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the order is patently illegal, shocking, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Disposition: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. Cited Cases: Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) Muhammad Inayat v. The State (1998 SCMR 1854) Mst. Sughran Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervaiz and others (2015 SCMR 1142) (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 374----Murder Reference----Non-confirmation of death sentence The murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative due to material contradictions, unreliable ocular evidence, flawed forensic analysis, and procedural irregularities. Disposition: Death sentence not confirmed. Final Outcome: Appeal allowed, sentence set aside, appellant acquitted, and petition for special leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 374, 375 & 376---Death sentence---Murder reference---Duty of High Court---Reappraisal of entire evidence---High Court, while deciding appeal of condemned prisoner along with murder reference for confirmation of death sentence, is not confined merely to the arguments advanced in appeal---In proceedings under S.374, Cr.P.C., High Court is under a statutory duty to read, scrutinize and reappraise every piece of evidence and to examine whether evidence has been improperly admitted, excluded, misread or non-read by Trial Court---Even non-filing or withdrawal of appeal, or any concession by State counsel, does not relieve High Court of such duty---Death sentence cannot be confirmed unless High Court independently assesses guilt or innocence and appropriateness of sentence. Cited Cases: Noorul Haq v. State 1989 PCr.LJ 1322. Fakiro v. State PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 344. Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1968 SC 1438. Jumman v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469. Ram Shankar v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1239. Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202. Gul v. Emperor AIR 1921 Sindh 84. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 9, 10A & 14---Criminal trial---Heinous offence---Fair trial and appraisal of evidence---Five persons were brutally murdered, but heinous, gruesome or brutal nature of offence could not justify strained, emotional or haphazard appreciation of evidence---Cases must be decided on evidence alone and not on sentiments---Even in a shocking murder case, accused remains presumed innocent until prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt through legally admissible, confidence-inspiring and reliable evidence---Fair trial under Art.10A cannot be taken away merely because allegations are grave. Cited Cases: Muhammad Fazil v. State 1982 PCr.LJ 510. Abdul Ghaffar v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 887. Muhammad Arif v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 1827. Kazim Hussain v. State 2008 PCr.LJ 971. Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274. State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat/Criminal trial---Circumstantial evidence---Unseen occurrence---Standard of proof---Prosecution case was wholly based on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recovery of motorcycle, alleged stolen property, bloodstained knives/gloves and medical evidence---Circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined with minute care and caution---Facts and circumstances relied upon must form a complete and unbroken chain, one end touching the dead body and the other the neck of accused---If any link is missing, or circumstances are reconcilable with any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, conviction, especially on a capital charge, cannot safely be recorded. Cited Cases: Lejzor Teper v. Queen PLD 1952 PC 117. Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214. Saeed Ahmad v. Muhammad Irfan PLD 1986 SC 690. Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Nazir Hossain v. State 1969 SCMR 388. Sairan v. State PLD 1970 SC 56. Karamat Hussain v. State 1972 SCMR 15. Barkat Ali v. Karam Elahi 1992 SCMR 1047. Ibrahim v. State 2009 SCMR 407. Muhammad Hussain v. State 2011 SCMR 1127. Imran v. State 2015 SCMR 155. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. Fayyaz Ahmad v. State 2017 SCMR 2026. (d) Criminal trial---Chance witness---Last seen evidence---Unexplained presence---Witness claimed that he saw three persons outside deceased’s house at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. while going for condolence in another village---Witness could not name the person whose father had allegedly died nor the deceased person on whose death he was going for condolence---Presence at such odd winter-night hours did not fit ordinary rural practice of condolence visits---Explanation for presence near place of occurrence was unsatisfactory---Last-seen evidence was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Javed Ahmad v. State 1978 SCMR 114. Zafar Hayat v. State 1995 SCMR 896. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2004 SCMR 755. Muhammad Khalid v. Abdullah 2008 SCMR 158. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142. Ibrar Hussain v. State 2020 SCMR 1850. (e) Criminal trial---Witness making material improvement---Effect---Witness had stated before police under S.161, Cr.P.C. that due to darkness he could not identify the persons seen outside deceased’s house, but in Court he identified accused and stated that there was light---He had not described age, complexion, height or other identifying features to police---Such glaring improvement was deliberate and material, made to strengthen prosecution case---Witness became unreliable and High Court’s view that his testimony remained unaffected was held flawed and untenable. Cited Cases: Hadi Bakhsh v. State PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 805. Shahzada v. Hamidullah 1968 PCr.LJ 176. Amir Zaman v. Mahboob 1985 SCMR 685. Saeed Muhammad v. State 1993 SCMR 550. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Akhtar Ali v. State 2008 SCMR 6. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2010 SCMR 385. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azan 2011 SCMR 474. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. (f) Criminal trial---Recovery of motorcycle allegedly used in occurrence---No specification in FIR---No forensic test---No proof of ownership---Effect---FIR did not mention make, colour, registration number or other particulars of motorcycle allegedly seen outside deceased’s house---Investigating Officer claimed bloodstains existed on motorcycle seat-cover but failed to send same to Chemical Examiner or Serologist---No proof of ownership was collected and alleged informer regarding ownership was not examined---Site-plan of place of recovery was also not prepared---Recovery was deficient and could not connect accused with occurrence. (g) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---Robbery-cum-murder---Unnatural recovery story---Effect---Prosecution alleged that accused were arrested at a snooker club and immediately made disclosures leading to recovery of gold ornaments, cash, defence saving certificates, laptop and cameras---Story that accused, while casually playing snooker, immediately admitted involvement in capital offence and cooperated in recoveries was intrinsically doubtful and inconsistent with ordinary human conduct---Non-mention of scattered jewellery boxes in FIR and absence of such boxes in crime-scene photographs further damaged prosecution case. (h) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---No prior description or proof of ownership---Effect---In absence of description of stolen property in FIR or prior statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., recovered articles could not safely be treated as stolen property of deceased---Goldsmith’s testimony was weak as he produced no sale record or proper repair record and could not satisfactorily prove ownership---Surviving daughters of deceased, who were best persons to identify ornaments, were not used for identification---Laptop and cameras were also not forensically examined to establish ownership---Such recoveries could not form a reliable link in circumstantial chain. (i) Criminal trial---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs---Contradictions and omissions---Effect---Investigating Officer’s oral statement regarding mobile phones being called for through brothers of accused contradicted written recovery memos---Persons who allegedly brought mobile phones were not joined in investigation, their names were not recorded, and explanation for such recovery was unnatural---Theft of mobile phones was not mentioned in FIR or supplementary statement---Call-data theory was also not properly put to accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. and relevant persons called through SIM were not examined---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs was unreliable. (j) Criminal trial---Recovery of bloodstained knives/gloves---Public place---Non-association of independent witnesses---Unnatural conduct---Weapons were allegedly recovered from beneath/near Manara Pulley, a public place near shops and villages, but no independent local witness was associated---Recovery witnesses were close relatives of complainant and particulars appeared added later on recovery memos---Story that offenders wrapped bloodstained knives and gloves in polythene bags and buried them near water stream instead of destroying or throwing them away was unnatural---Recovery was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. (k) Criminal trial---Recovery of weapon of offence---Corroborative evidence only---Substantive evidence absent---Effect---Recovery of alleged weapon of offence is only corroborative and cannot by itself prove guilt where substantive evidence fails---If ocular or other substantive evidence is unreliable, recovery of weapon cannot independently sustain conviction---Recovery of bloodstained knives, even if assumed, was insufficient without reliable substantive evidence connecting accused with murder. Cited Cases: Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Saifullah v. State 1985 SCMR 410. Ali Muhammad v. Bashir Ahmed 2003 SCMR 868. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz 2007 SCMR 1427. Hayatullah v. State 2018 SCMR 2092. (l) Criminal trial---Bloodstained weapon---Forensic report not matching blood with deceased---Evidentiary value---Mere recovery of bloodstained knife or weapon does not connect accused with offence unless blood found thereon is forensically matched with blood of deceased---As with firearm recovery requiring positive forensic report matching crime empties, recovery of bloodstained weapon without matching report cannot be used as substantive or corroborative evidence against accused---Bloodstained knives/gloves in the case did not connect petitioners with murders. Cited Cases: Irfan Ali v. State 2015 SCMR 840. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Hamid Nadeem v. State 2011 SCMR 1233. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Azhar Mehmood v. State 2017 SCMR 135. (m) Medical evidence---Nature and scope---Supporting evidence, not corroborative evidence connecting accused---Medical evidence proved only that deaths occurred by cutting throats with sharp-edged weapon---It could confirm seat, nature and cause of injury, type of weapon and duration between injury and death, but could not identify offender---Medical evidence by itself does not connect accused with commission of offence and cannot constitute corroboration for involvement of accused. Cited Cases: Yaqoob Shah v. State PLD 1976 SC 53. Machia v. State PLD 1976 SC 695. Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain 1994 SCMR 1928. Mehmood Ahmad v. State 1995 SCMR 127. Muhammad Sharif v. State 1997 SCMR 866. Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal PLD 2004 SC 663. Iftikhar Hussain v. State 2004 SCMR 1185. Sikandar v. State 2006 SCMR 1786. Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Akram 2007 SCMR 1549. Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1103. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. (n) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 161 & 342---Test identification parade---Witness dying before trial---Effect---One Fazal Karim allegedly told police that he saw accused Qadeer with two unknown boys going towards locality of deceased’s house, but he died during trial and could not be examined---Investigating Officer did not conduct test identification proceedings of Khurram Shahzad and Naveed Asghar through said witness after their arrest---Statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of deceased witness could not be used to draw adverse inference against accused, especially when veracity could not be tested by cross-examination---Omission to hold identification proceedings was serious failure in investigation. (o) Criminal investigation---Defective investigation---Creating evidence instead of collecting evidence---Effect---Investigation of gruesome murder of five members of a family was marked by serious omissions, doubtful recoveries, absence of forensic examination, lack of independent witnesses, failure to conduct identification proceedings, and attempt to fill gaps through questionable evidence---Investigating Officer appeared to create evidence instead of collecting legally admissible evidence---Such investigation could not support conviction on capital charge. (p) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Suspicion and probability not enough---Standard beyond reasonable doubt---Finding of guilt cannot rest on high probabilities, suspicion, surmises or conjectures---If prosecution evidence leaves reasonable doubt, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession---Courts below filled missing links in circumstantial chain due to heinous nature of charge, resulting in grave injustice---Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: Muhammad Luqman v. State PLD 1970 SC 10. Tariq Pervez v. State 1995 SCMR 1345. Ayub Masih v. State PLD 2002 SC 1048. (q) Criminal appeal---Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court---Supreme Court’s interference---Where concurrent verdicts were based on superficial and cursory appreciation of evidence, overlooked serious pitfalls, and were founded on unreliable circumstantial evidence, Supreme Court could interfere---Conviction and death sentence were manifestly erroneous because prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and failed to rule out every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Disposition: Jail petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments of Trial Court and High Court were set aside; petitioners were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.