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: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Trial – Conviction on Doubtful Evidence:---- Burden of Proof – Prosecution must prove case beyond a reasonable doubtAccused persons were charged under Sections 302, 324, 338-C, and 34 P.P.C. for the murder of a woman (Mst. Hameeda) and her unborn child—Prosecution failed to establish the presence of key eyewitnesses at the crime scene—Complainant’s presence at the time of the incident was doubtful due to his duty schedule—Held, prosecution evidence must be cogent, confidence-inspiring, and beyond reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as a matter of right, not concession.----Cited Cases:Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772)Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)(b) Chance Witnesses – Unreliable Testimony:---- Testimony of chance witnesses must be scrutinized carefullyThe complainant and an eyewitness failed to justify their presence at the crime scene—The complainant, an FC officer, was scheduled for duty at Qilla Balahisar at the time of the incident—His leave certificate was a photocopy and not produced by any official—Another eyewitness, Sabir Umar (PW.10), had no reasonable explanation for his presence at the scene—Held, testimony of chance witnesses is suspect unless supported by independent and convincing evidence.----Cited Cases:Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142)Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta (2017 SCMR 142)(c) Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration:---- Direction of bullet wounds contradicts prosecution’s versionMedical examination showed the deceased had a single gunshot wound with an upward-to-downward trajectory, indicating the shooter was positioned above the victim—No evidence or testimony supported this positioning—Held, when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's case, it creates reasonable doubt.----Cited Case:Imran Ashraf v. The State (2001 SCMR 424)(d) Delay in Sending Ballistic Evidence to FSL:---- Crime empties should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) without delayThe prosecution delayed sending recovered bullet casings to the FSL—Crime empties were kept at the police station until after the accused’s arrest, raising suspicion of tampering—Held, FSL reports lose evidentiary value if crime empties are sent for examination after an accused's arrest.----Cited Cases:Ghulam Akbar v. The State (2008 SCMR 1064)Jehangir v. Nazar Farid (2002 SCMR 1986)(e) Presumption of Innocence – Benefit of Doubt to Accused:---- Prosecution must eliminate all reasonable doubt to secure convictionProsecution failed to explain why four armed assailants opened indiscriminate fire without a clear motive—No evidence of bullet marks on walls or gates of the house—Held, any doubt, however minor, must be resolved in favor of the accused—Accused acquitted.----Cited Cases:Abdul Jabbar v. The State (2019 SCMR 129)Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749)----Disposition:Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentences set aside—Accused acquitted and released unless required in another case.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involves the appeal of a conviction for murder and the causing of a miscarriage under sections 302(b) and 338C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The appellant had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. He was also sentenced to seven years imprisonment for causing the miscarriage of his wife's unborn child. The appellant challenged this conviction in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. -----2- Whether the eyewitness testimonies were reliable and supported by independent corroboration. -----3- Whether the forensic and medical evidence conclusively linked the appellant to the crime. -----4- Whether the alleged motive for the crime was sufficiently established. -----5- Whether the legal burden shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances of the death. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, as they were chance witnesses with no convincing explanation for their presence at the scene of the crime. The court held that the mobile phone allegedly used by the deceased to call one of the eyewitnesses was not produced, and no call data record (CDR) was presented to support this claim. This raised serious doubts about the prosecution's narrative. The recovery of the pistol from the crime scene did not provide corroboration, as it was not conclusively linked to the appellant, and no latent fingerprints were developed. The medical evidence confirmed the cause of death but did not identify the appellant as the perpetrator. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive of matrimonial disputes, and no independent evidence was provided to substantiate the motive claim. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, did not shift the burden to the appellant to prove his innocence. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release due to reasonable doubt. The death sentence was not confirmed. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Muhammad Zaman vs. The State (2014 SCMR 749) Najaf Ali Shah vs. The State (2021 SCMR 736) Abdul Jabbar vs. The State (2010 SCMR 129) Muhammad Imran vs. The State (2020 SCMR 857) State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs. Hassan Jalil and others (2019 SCMR 1154) Abdul Majeed vs. The State (2011 SCMR 941) Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa vs. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) Mst. Asia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64) Rehmat alias Rahman alias Waryam alias Badshah vs. The State (PLD 1977 SC 515) Nazeer Ahmed vs. The State (2016 SCMR 1628) Asad Khan vs. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 681) Khalid alias Khalidi and two others vs. The State (2012 SCMR 327) Hashim Qasim and another vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Naveed Asghar and two others vs. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 600) Muhammad Javed vs. The State (2016 SCMR 2021) Arshad Khan vs. The State (2017 SCMR 564)

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) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b), 302(c), 324, 338-A(b), 337-D & 34—Qatl-i-amd, qatl-i-shibh-i-amd, attempt to murder, causing hurt—Grave and sudden provocation—Conversion of conviction from S.302(b) to S.302(c)—Scope—Evidence and circumstances disclosed that quarrel erupted within domestic premises between deceased (daughter-in-law) and appellant’s mother; both sides exchanged abuses and physical assault—Appellant arrived on call from his mother, who alleged that she was being beaten and insulted—Altercation escalated and appellant fired without premeditation—Prosecution itself admitted prior scuffle and abuse between deceased and mother-in-law—No evidence of prior enmity or motive—Incident occurred in heat of passion upon grave and sudden provocation arising from disrespect and assault to appellant’s mother—No material to show calculated intent to kill—Held, case fell within ambit of S.302(c) PPC—Conviction altered from death under S.302(b) to R.I. for 14 years under S.302(c); other convictions under Ss.324, 338-A(b) & 337-D PPC maintained—Murder Reference answered in Negative; death sentence not confirmed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 34—Qatl-i-amd—Common intention—Acquittal of co-accused—Benefit of doubt—No overt act of Mst. Ghafooran Bibi proved regarding firearm injury causing death—Alleged blunt injuries on deceased not shown under which provision they were punishable—No evidence that she shared common intention with principal offender—Held, conviction unsustainable—Accused acquitted. (c) Evidence—Appreciation—Medical corroboration—Post-mortem revealed one firearm injury and remaining abrasions from blunt means; consistent with scuffle and sudden quarrel—Prosecution witnesses admitted altercation sequence and mutual aggression—Such testimony supported plea of provocation rather than premeditated intent. (d) Criminal Law—Appeal against acquittal—Interference—Principles—Unless finding is perverse, wholly illegal, or based on misreading of evidence, acquittal cannot be reversed—Acquitted person enjoys double presumption of innocence—Prosecution failed to produce independent incriminating evidence—Held, acquittal of co-accused Adil Rehman Shakir upheld. (Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar 2003 SCMR 477—followed) (e) Disposition— ----Murder Reference No. 170 of 2022 answered in Negative; death sentence of Muhammad Nouman Shakir not confirmed—Conviction altered to S. 302(c) PPC; sentenced to 14 years’ R.I.—Crl. Appeal No. 39518-J of 2022 partly allowed; appellant Mst. Ghafooran Bibi acquitted; her bail sureties discharged—Crl. Appeal No. 35023 of 2022 (complainant against acquittal of Adil Rehman Shakir) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 154, 342, 374 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 311, 338-C — Qatl-e-amd — Defective FIR — False implication — Benefit of doubt — Acquittal FIR was lodged belatedly via a written application (Exh.PA) after oral narration of the occurrence to a police official at the police station, which was not recorded contemporaneously. The Court held that the true “first information” under S.154, Cr.P.C., was the unrecorded verbal statement by the complainant to the Moharrar, rendering the written application inadmissible as FIR in stricto sensu. Lack of blood marks or dragging signs at the alleged outdoor scene contradicted the prosecution version. Ocular evidence was rendered doubtful due to the chance witness status of both prosecution eyewitnesses, who failed to offer credible reasons for their presence at the scene. Testimonies were held to be “suspect evidence,” warranting rejection without corroboration. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142 • Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 • Sarfaraz v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 (b) Qatl-e-amd — Recovery evidence — Weapon recovery — Tampering and delay — Forensic inconclusiveness — Effect Pistol and chhurri allegedly recovered on the appellant’s pointation were found unreliable. The pistol parcel reportedly included six live bullets, yet PFSA report failed to confirm receipt of the same, raising tampering concerns. The chhurri was recovered after 27 days; its forensic report was held inconsequential as human blood disintegrates within three weeks. Thus, recoveries were held uncorroborated and irrelevant for confirming the prosecution’s version. Cited Cases: • Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2016 SCMR 2138 (c) Evidence — Ocular account — Chance witnesses — Lack of proximity — Dishonest improvements — No corroboration Complainant and PW-2 were not residents of the area of occurrence and offered no plausible explanation for following the deceased. Their statements lacked corroboration, were riddled with improvements, and were not supported by independent or forensic evidence. No witness from the locality or the alleged house of the deceased’s maternal uncle was presented. In the absence of reliable and independent eyewitness account, the prosecution's version collapsed. (d) Criminal trial — Medical and motive evidence — Corroborative value — Cannot identify assailant — Motive inconsequential if ocular account fails Medical evidence merely confirmed the nature of injuries but could not identify the assailant. Motive alleged was based on marriage without family consent, which the Court held to be a double-edged sword—capable of both implicating and exonerating the accused. With the ocular account discredited, motive was declared inconsequential. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 • Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 486 (e) Criminal trial — Standard of proof — Single dent in prosecution case sufficient for acquittal — Legal principle affirmed The Court reaffirmed the principle that even a single material defect in the prosecution case is sufficient to acquit the accused. In the instant case, multiple material contradictions, gaps, and inconclusive forensic evidence created reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Case: • Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 Disposition: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted. Death sentence not confirmed; Murder Reference answered in negative. ---- "FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR."

Summary: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-XVII, Peshawar, for offenses under Sections 302, 324, 338-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), based on allegations of firing at a complainant and his wife, which resulted in the death of the wife and her unborn child. The incident occurred on October 22, 2021, in front of the complainant's house. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment, required to pay Diyat, and fined for their involvement in the incident. The appellants appealed the conviction, questioning the prosecution’s evidence and their alleged involvement. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction of the appellants? ----- 2) Was the complainant’s and the alleged eyewitnesses’ presence at the scene of the crime credible? ----- 3) Was the shooting directed toward the deceased, or could there be another explanation for the injury? ----- 4) Were legal procedures properly followed in the recovery of weapons and other evidence? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Insufficient Evidence: The Lahore High Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution inadequate to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubts were raised regarding the complainant's presence at the scene, as he claimed to be on leave from his duty during the incident, but the leave certificate was not authenticated by any official. The complainant’s survival despite being the alleged target of four armed men raised further skepticism. ----- Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: The court held that the two eyewitnesses, the complainant and a relative, were "chance witnesses," whose presence at the scene was not convincingly explained. The relative’s testimony was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and neither provided a credible reason for being at the crime scene at the time of the incident. ----- Doubt on the Manner of Firing: The autopsy report indicated that the deceased sustained only one gunshot wound, with the direction of the bullet suggesting it was fired from above, which contradicted the prosecution's claim of indiscriminate firing. The absence of bullet marks on the complainant’s house and the limited recovery of spent cartridges further undermined the prosecution’s case. ----- Improper Handling of Evidence: The court found significant discrepancies in the recovery and handling of the weapon and forensic evidence. The delay in sending the recovered weapon and crime empty to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) weakened the credibility of the forensic report. The court held that such delays and procedural lapses made the evidence unreliable and inadmissible. ----- Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences of the appellants were set aside. The court ordered the appellants' acquittal and their immediate release if not involved in any other case. ----- Citations/Precedents: (1996 SCMR 1553): Defense admissions in cross-examination cannot bind the accused. (PLD 1994 SC 858): The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defense. (2001 SCMR 424): Recovery evidence is used for corroboration and should be considered along with other evidence. (2008 SCMR 1064): Crime empties must be sent to the FSL promptly; delays weaken the recovery evidence. (2017 SCMR 142): Testimony of chance witnesses requires cautious scrutiny. (2018 SCMR 772): Any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case must be resolved in favor of the accused. (1995 SCMR 1345): A single doubt regarding the guilt of the accused entitles them to acquittal. "S. 302/338-C/34 Pakistan Penal Code. 1. Admission on behalf of defence counsel is cross-examination. 2. Accused is not bound by admission made by his counsel in cross-examination. 3. Prosecution is duty bound to prove its case through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence and it cannot drive benefit from the weakness of defence."