Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal trial ---- Ss. 302(b), 390 & 398, P.P.C. --- Acquittal on benefit of doubt --- Identification parade flawed --- Recovery of weapon not trustworthy --- Conviction reversed Petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Ss. 302(b) and 398, P.P.C., and sentenced to death and imprisonment, respectively, for committing a robbery and murder in a shop. Their conviction was upheld by the Islamabad High Court and the death sentence confirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted both petitioners, extending benefit of doubt due to material infirmities in the prosecution case. Held, identification parade was vitiated as the accused’s photographs were taken in police custody prior to identification, violating the requirements of a lawful identification procedure. Furthermore, the identification parade did not mention the roles played by each accused in the occurrence, which rendered it devoid of evidentiary value in light of Article 22 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. [Relied on: Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam 2024 SCMR 757; Abdul Hayee v. State 2025 SCMR 281; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146]. (b) Criminal trial ---- Identification parade ---- Role attribution mandatory --- Defective parade cannot be basis of conviction Held, that for identification evidence to be reliable, each identifying witness must not only correctly identify the accused but also assign the specific role allegedly played by them during the incident. In the present case, witnesses identified the accused without narrating their respective roles, and the Magistrate (PW-10) failed to follow standard judicial procedures, including the omission of separate certificates for each accused. The entire identification exercise thus stood vitiated and devoid of probative value. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---- Recovery of weapons --- Lack of independent corroboration --- Possibility of foisting not ruled out --- Evidentiary value compromised Both petitioners were arrested the day after the incident and later allegedly led to the recovery of .30 bore pistols on their pointation. However, no independent witnesses, including the cattle shed owner or locals, were associated with the recoveries, nor were disclosure memos properly prepared. This lack of transparency led to strong doubts about the authenticity of the recoveries. The chain of custody was broken, and the prosecution failed to explain inconsistencies in the recovery timeline and witnesses’ versions. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45 --- Forensic report --- Positive ballistic match --- Cannot stand alone without credible recovery --- Evidentiary weight Though the pistol recovered from petitioner Muhammad Ramzan matched the crime empties according to the NFSA report, the Court held that such expert evidence cannot sustain a conviction if the foundational recovery is itself untrustworthy or appears to be foisted. Forensic evidence, while corroborative, must be anchored in a credible recovery process to retain its probative force. In absence of independent attestation or lawful procedure, even a positive expert report loses significance. (e) Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Art. 22 --- Identification evidence --- Must be based on first-hand knowledge and proper role description --- Evidence discarded Held, that an identification test without role attribution is against settled legal standards. In the present case, witnesses simply identified the petitioners without specifying actions taken during the crime. Such evidence, unsupported by clear, consistent testimony or procedural compliance, cannot be relied upon in a criminal trial. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b) --- Murder trial --- CCTV footage relied upon by trial court --- Not sufficient to identify accused --- Backside-only footage inadmissible for facial recognition Held, that the CCTV footage showed only the back of the alleged assailant and did not depict facial features. The footage, therefore, lacked evidentiary utility for identification purposes and could not support the conviction. (g) Criminal law --- Benefit of doubt --- Duty of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt --- Where doubt arises, benefit must go to accused Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Doubts arising from contradictions in recovery timeline, absence of role-specific identification, and lack of independent evidence rendered the case unreliable. The trial and appellate courts misread and misappreciated the evidence. Disposition: Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; petitioners acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 392 & 458—Robbery and house trespass by night—Conviction based on credible and consistent ocular evidence— Eyewitnesses, including family members of complainant, gave detailed, corroborative, and consistent accounts of the incident, withstood cross-examination, and identified the convict in Court—Recovery of gold ornaments and pistol on accused’s pointation further corroborated prosecution case—Minor contradictions in statements (Kalashnikov vs. pistol) held immaterial—Evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Concurrent findings of lower Courts upheld to the extent of conviction. (b) Evidence—Police witnesses—Section 103, Cr.PC— Non-association of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings—Not fatal to prosecution case—Police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely because of their official status—No evidence of enmity or malice shown—Consistent view reaffirmed. Cited Cases: Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State [2022 SCR 334]; Salah-ud-Din v. State [2010 SCMR 1962]; Shabbir Hussain v. State [2021 SCMR 198]. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 265-K & 382-B—Rule of consistency and benefit of doubt—Co-accused acquitted under S. 265-K—Convict entitled to consideration of mitigating factors—Minor inconsistencies not sufficient to overturn conviction but justify leniency in sentence—Convict already served 5 years, 9 months, 3 days—Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fines maintained. (d) Criminal Law—Concurrent findings—Interference by Supreme Court— Concurrent findings of guilt generally not to be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading/non-reading of evidence—No such infirmity found—Conviction maintained, sentence modified in view of mitigating circumstances. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed—Conviction maintained; sentence of seven years reduced to period already served; fines imposed by lower Courts to remain intact.

Summary: Background: The case involved a nighttime armed intrusion into a house where the intruders allegedly assaulted the inhabitants and robbed the household. The accused were charged under Section 17(3) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 397, 398, and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading the prosecution to file an appeal challenging the acquittal. ----Issues: 1- Was the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to convict the accused? 2- Was the trial court's acquittal of the accused justified based on the evidence provided? 3- Was the identification of the accused by the witnesses credible? 4- Did the legal standards for overturning an acquittal justify intervention in this case? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Insufficient Evidence: The appellate court found that the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies, lacked credibility and failed to sufficiently establish the guilt of the accused. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts and noted that the identification of the accused was based on vague and unreliable methods, such as recognizing them by their nose, hair, or voice, which lacked corroboration. --Improper Identification: The identification process was flawed and lacked proper procedures. The court stressed that identification of the accused in poor lighting conditions, as claimed by the witnesses, was not reliable. The court emphasized the necessity of clear and credible identification, which was absent in this case. --Medical Evidence: The court dismissed the prosecution's reliance on medical evidence, stating that while it confirmed the injuries, it did not establish who inflicted them. The court reiterated that medical evidence alone cannot prove the identity of the attackers. --Legal Standard for Acquittal: The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, reiterating the principle that overturning an acquittal requires showing that the trial court's findings were perverse or shockingly unreasonable. The appellate court found that the trial court had reasonably evaluated the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11) Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif (PLD 2008 SC 298) Muhammad Tasawer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749)