Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of specific sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), namely Sections 306(b)(c), 307(1)(b)(c), 309(1), and 310(1), on the grounds that these provisions, related to Qisas (retaliation) and Diyat (compensation), were against the Injunctions of Islam. Additionally, the petitioner contested Sections 313 and 338 of the PPC and Sections 345(1) & (2A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) on similar grounds. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned sections of the PPC and Cr.P.C. are against the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the existing legal provisions adequately address the gravity of offenses like honor killing. 3- Whether the state has the authority to legislate and enact laws for maintaining law and order while adhering to Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions in question were not against the Injunctions of Islam. The court emphasized that the state has the authority to legislate within the limits prescribed by Islamic law. The court further noted that the existing legal framework, particularly the amended Section 311 PPC, already addresses the concerns raised by the petitioner, especially regarding offenses categorized as "fasad-fil-arz" (mischief on earth). The court found that the petitioner's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate that the impugned sections violated Islamic principles. ----Citations/Precedents 1997 SCMR 1307 - Sheikh Muhammad Aslam & another Vs. Shauakat Ali alias Shauka 2004 SCMR 236 - Bashir Ahmed Vs. The State 2005 SCMR 599 - Khan Muhammad Vs. The State PLD 1996 SC 1 - Abdul Haque vs. The State and another 2000 SCMR 338 - Abdus Salam vs. The State PLD 2005 SC 252 - Muhammad Abdullah Yousaf and others vs. Miss Nadia Ayub and others PLD 2015 SC 77 - Zahid Rehman vs. The State PLD 1980 FSC 1 - Muhammad Riaz Versus Federal Government PLD 1989 SC 633 - Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court Judgment on compoundability of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 PPC

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860----Ss. 302(a), 302(b), 302(c), 304, 306, 307 & 308---Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder)---Distinction between Qisas and Ta’zir---Scope and applicability of Section 308, P.P.C.---Authoritative interpretation---Supreme Court clarified that Qisas and Ta’zir are two distinct and mutually exclusive legal regimes under Islamic criminal jurisprudence---Section 308, P.P.C., providing alternate punishment where Qisas is not liable or enforceable, is applicable only in cases where Qisas is otherwise attracted but barred due to specific exceptions under Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Where murder is proved without fulfilling the evidentiary requirements of S. 304, P.P.C., such case falls within the Ta’zir domain under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and Ss. 306–308, P.P.C., have no application---Confusion arose due to earlier judgments applying S. 308, P.P.C., to Ta’zir cases without assessing whether Qisas was applicable---Court categorically held that benefit under S. 308, P.P.C., is not available in cases where conviction is under S. 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta’zir.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 306---Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Categories defined---Provision does not create a distinct offence but provides exceptions to the enforcement of Qisas in cases where the offender is a minor, insane, parent, or where Wali is a direct descendant---Offenders falling under this provision may be exempt from Qisas but may still face punishment under S. 308, P.P.C., provided the case otherwise qualifies as Qisas.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 308---Punishment in Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Limited application---Provision operates only where Qisas is applicable but not enforceable due to exceptions in Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Does not apply to cases where punishment is awarded as Ta’zir under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(d) Case Law---Conflicting Precedents---Resolution by Larger BenchCourt reviewed case law spanning over two decades and resolved the long-standing judicial divergence regarding the applicability of Ss. 306–308, P.P.C.---Judgments in cases such as Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court (PLD 1994 SC 885) and its reversal in Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203) revisited---Court held that the latter judgment by a five-member bench holds greater authoritative value and correctly laid down the law---All subsequent decisions granting benefit of S. 308, P.P.C., in Ta’zir cases were held per incuriam to the extent they ignored or misapplied Faqir Ullah’s ratio.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 17---Tazkiyah-tul-shahood---Precondition for Qisas punishment---Qatl-i-amd punishable as Qisas can only be awarded if confession or competent eyewitness testimony (in accordance with Islamic standards) is provided---Failure to meet these requirements shifts the case to Ta’zir regime under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(f) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 203G---Interpretation of Islamic injunctions---Scope of judicial review---Supreme Court clarified that interpretation of Islamic injunctions for the purposes of testing repugnancy lies with the Federal Shariat Court and not with the Supreme Court or High Courts.Disposition:Court conclusively held that provisions of Ss. 306, 307, and 308, P.P.C. apply exclusively to cases of Qisas and are inapplicable to Ta’zir convictions under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Judicial clarity reaffirmed on the doctrinal separation of Qisas and Ta’zir frameworks in Islamic criminal law.Cited Cases:• Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman, 1999 SCMR 2203• Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir, PLD 2007 SC 111• Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2003 SCMR 855• Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, 2004 SCMR 4• Tauqeer Ahmad Khan v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2009 SCMR 420

Summary: Conviction set aside ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) ----Sections 302, 307, and 34---Concurrent findings of guilt---Misreading of evidence---Effect. Conviction based on misreading of evidence and failure to consider circumstantial evidence favorable to the accused constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Concurrent findings by lower courts do not warrant interference unless they stem from significant procedural or evidentiary errors. In this case, the courts misinterpreted and overlooked material discrepancies, leading to an improper conviction. Cited Case: Noora and another v. The State (PLD 1973 SC 469) -----(b) Evidence Law Eye-witness testimony---Requirements for reliability---Effect of contradictions and falsehoods. Eye-witness testimony must be corroborated by reliable evidence and withstand scrutiny for inherent contradictions. In the instant case, the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses was riddled with discrepancies, such as inconsistencies in the timeline, motive, and visibility conditions, undermining its credibility. False claims and contradictions in the testimony further discredit the prosecution's case. Cited Case: Sadiq v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 356) -----(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 129(g) Adverse presumption---Non-production of key evidence. Failure to produce essential witnesses or corroborative evidence invites an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The prosecution's inability to substantiate its claims, including the absence of public witnesses for the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, weakened its case. -----(d) Criminal Law Weapon recovery---Mandatory provisions ignored---Evidentiary value. Recovery of the alleged murder weapon in violation of mandatory legal procedures holds no evidentiary value. The absence of public attestation and discrepancies in the recovery timeline rendered the evidence inadmissible. -----(e) Motive in criminal cases Failure to prove motive---Impact on prosecution's case. Failure to establish a credible motive for the crime diminishes the prosecution's case and necessitates heightened scrutiny of ocular and circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive in this case was unsubstantiated, further eroding the reliability of the prosecution's narrative. -----(f) Delay in FIR and reporting Unexplained delay in lodging FIR---Effect on case integrity. Delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with inconsistent justifications, casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. The time taken to report the incident and discrepancies regarding the reporting location undermined the prosecution's claim of immediate reporting. ----- Final Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant (Mohammad Sadiq) and allowed the appeal filed by the accused (Mohammad Sarwar). The convictions of both accused were set aside, and they were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Summary: Acquittal granted ------ (a) Criminal trial‑Onus always lies on prosecution to prove its case Prosecution to succeed on strength of its own case and not on weakness of defence‑High Court finding that prosecution had completely failed to establish its own case and finding further that occurrence was due to sudden flaring up of fight between complainant party and accused‑Merely because complainant party got worst of fight, High Court, held, not right in holding that accused in ‑circumstance must have been aggressor‑Defence, in criminal trial, need not establish innocence of accused‑Prosecution version if doubtful, benefit of doubt must be given to accused‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. If the Court finds that both sides came out armed prepared for a fight and engaged in a free ht in a public place, the Court would clearly misdirect self in taking the view that because the complainant side got the worst of the fight the accused must have been the aggressors and, therefore, they should be held to be guilty. This would be a completely wrong approach. In such cases although no question of either side claiming the right of private defence arises yet the culpability of the participants in the fight has to be assessed on an individual basis. Each person participating in such a fight is responsible for his own individual acts. The onus in a criminal case always lies on the prosecution. It never shifts to the accused. It is wrong, therefore, to think that because "the accused persons did not tell the whole truth" the prosecution must succeed. The prosecu tion has always to succeed upon the strength of its own case and not the weakness of the defence case. It is not necessary for the defence to establish the innocence of the accused persons. It is enough for it if it has succeeded in casting a serious doubt upon the prosecution case. The benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah P L D 1962 S C 502 ref. (b) Criminal trial‑Motive‑Prosecution though not called upon to establish motive in every case, yet once it has set up a motive and failed to establish‑Prosecution must suffer consequence and not defence‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. It is not necessary for the prosecution to set up a motive in every case but where the prosecution has set up a motive and failed to establish it then it is the prosecution which must necessarily suffer on that account and not the defence. If the prosecution failed to establish the motive set up by it, as also failed in establishing that the incident occurred m the manner alleged by it then it is difficult to see as to what remained of the prosecution case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Murder‑Prosecution found to have (i) falsely implicated five persons in case; (ii) deliberately suppressed manner in which one accused received injuries ; (iii) deliberately suppressed manner of occurrence and (iv) given false evidence with regard to injury caused to one of accused‑Held, High Court, in circumstances, had wrongly come to conclusion that version given by prosecution was true. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 162(2) & 164 and Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 32(1)‑Murder case‑Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate, lost and not found - Statement of deceased recorded by Police Officer under S. 161, Cr. P. C., in such circumstance, admissible in evidence in view of provision of S. 162(2)‑No evidence led of contents of dying declaration after proving loss of original and possibility existing of police statement being recorded in presence of other prosecution witnesses‑Statement recorded by Police although found admissible, held nevertheless, of not much value in circumstances.

Summary: Bail cancelled ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S. 497(5): Bail—Cancellation—Highway dacoity—Murder during the commission of dacoity—Non-compoundable offense—Application of Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979—Judicial discretion—Effect. State sought cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge to the accused/respondents charged under S. 302/324/307/392, P.P.C., S. 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and S. 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965—Accused were allegedly involved in a highway dacoity, during which they opened fire, causing the death of a truck driver and injuries to the cleaner—Prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including recovery of stolen goods, unlicensed weapons, and blood-stained items—Confessional statement of an accused recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. further implicated them—Sessions Judge failed to consider that offenses under S. 392, P.P.C. and S. 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were non-compoundable and fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—Court held that when dacoity on a highway results in murder, the mandatory punishment under S. 17(4) of the Ordinance is death as Hadd—Impugned order granting bail was recalled—Accused/respondents taken into custody and remanded to judicial lock-up—Trial transferred to another Sessions Judge due to concerns over the initial judge’s handling of the case. ---Disposition: Bail cancelled; accused taken into custody; case transferred.

Summary: Background: Ghulam Shabbir, the petitioner, was arrested on 15.07.1990 under FIR No. 243 for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to two others. He was convicted by the Trial Court on 07.12.1994 under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death on two counts. Additionally, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on two counts under Section 307 PPC. The High Court dismissed his appeal on 07.02.2000, and the Supreme Court upheld his convictions and sentences on 28.10.2015. The petitioner subsequently filed a criminal review petition, arguing that having already served a life term, his death sentences should be converted into imprisonment for life. ----Issues: 1) Whether the prolonged detention of the petitioner, extending beyond a life term, warrants the conversion of his death sentences into imprisonment for life. --2) Whether the systemic delay in the execution of the death sentence justifies a reduction in the quantum of punishment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and legal precedents, acknowledged that the petitioner had served more than 34 years in prison, with 24 of those years spent in death row under harsh and inhumane conditions. The Court noted that this prolonged detention effectively amounted to life imprisonment, making any further punishment excessive and contrary to the principles of justice. The Court exercised its discretion and converted the petitioner’s death sentences into imprisonment for life on two counts, applying the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner’s conviction and sentence under Section 307 PPC were upheld, and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In a significant observation, the Court highlighted the dire need for reform in the treatment of prisoners, especially those on death row. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated: "It is need of the hour that the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments must reconsider the prisoners laws, enabling the prisoners to be treated in accordance with law, to enjoy the equal protection of law. Prisons should provide an atmosphere to prisoners especially those incarcerated in death cells in order to maintain their human identity and respect, their personal values and dignity which is their constitutional right." This statement underscores the Court's concern over the harsh conditions faced by death row prisoners and the importance of aligning prison laws with constitutional rights and international standards. ----Citations/Precedents: Dilawar Hussain: 2013 SCMR 1582 Hassan: PLD 2013 SC 793 Khalid Iqbal: PLD 2015 SC 50 Sikandar Hayat: PLD 2020 SC 559 Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki: PLD 2010 FSC 1 ----These cases were pivotal in establishing the principle that prolonged detention, particularly under death row conditions, justifies converting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized the need to treat prisoners in a manner consistent with their human rights, reflecting the importance of dignity and respect even within the penal system.