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: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Murder Case (S. 302, P.P.C.)—Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence:----Conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C.—Reversal due to insufficient evidence and misappreciation of factsThe appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment as Tazir, along with Rs. 100,000/- compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, or in default, to suffer three months’ simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under Sections 458, 147, and 148, P.P.C. The High Court overturned the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in proving a common intention to commit murder.----Cited Law:• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), S. 302(b) (Punishment for murder)• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), S. 147 (Punishment for rioting)• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), S. 148 (Rioting with a deadly weapon)• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), S. 458 (House trespass or lurking house-trespass by night)(b) Acquittal of Co-Accused in the First Trial—Same Evidence Used Against Appellant:----Conviction of appellant unjustified when co-accused were acquitted on identical evidenceThe appellant was an absconder at the time of the first trial, during which his co-accused Para Din and Pai Din were acquitted, while Gul Muhammad was convicted. The roles attributed to the appellant and the acquitted co-accused were identical, as they were all present at the scene but unarmed and did not participate in the murder. The High Court held that if the same evidence was disbelieved in favor of the co-accused, it could not be relied upon to convict the appellant.----Precedent Applied:• Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)—If a set of evidence is disbelieved for some accused, it cannot be used to convict others facing the same trial.(c) Common Intention (S. 34, P.P.C.)—Not Established by Prosecution:----Mere presence at the crime scene does not constitute common intentionThe prosecution failed to establish any overt act or instigation by the appellant, which is necessary for invoking Section 34, P.P.C.. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the assumption that he "provoked and instigated" others against the deceased, but no direct evidence or corroborating testimony supported this claim. The High Court ruled that common intention must be inferred from proven facts, not mere conjecture.----Cited Law:• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), S. 34 (Common intention)----Precedent Applied:• Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2016 SCMR 267)—Vicarious liability under S. 34, P.P.C. cannot be imposed without clear evidence of a shared intention to commit the crime.(d) Defective Recording of Accused’s Statement Under S. 342, Cr.P.C:----Failure to put incriminating evidence to accused—Impact on convictionThe trial court relied on evidence that was never put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C., violating the principle that an accused must be given the opportunity to explain all circumstances against him. The High Court held that such an omission rendered the conviction legally unsustainable.----Cited Law:• Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), S. 342 (Examination of accused)----Precedent Applied:• Muhammad Shah v. The State (2010 SCMR 1009)—If any piece of evidence is not put to the accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., it cannot be used for conviction.• Qaddan v. The State (2017 SCMR 148)—Failure to question the accused about incriminating circumstances violates fair trial rights.(e) Failure of Prosecution to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt:----Prosecution evidence relied on conjectures rather than conclusive proofThe motive presented by the prosecution (deceased’s visits to his fiancée’s house) was inconsistent with witness testimonies, and no direct evidence linked the appellant to planning or committing the murder. The trial court convicted the appellant based on assumptions, not legal evidence, violating the fundamental principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.----Cited Law:• Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) (Adverse inference for failure to produce best evidence)----Precedent Applied:• Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486)—Conviction cannot be based on "high probabilities" or mere suspicions.• Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)—An accused must be acquitted if a single reasonable doubt exists regarding their guilt.(f) Final Judgment—Acquittal of Accused:----Conviction set aside—Benefit of doubt extended to appellantThe High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, stating that the trial court’s findings were based on speculation rather than credible evidence.----Disposition:Appeal allowed—Conviction set aside—Accused acquitted—Immediate release ordered if not required in any other case.

Summary: Sentence reduced ----- 1. Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Eyewitness Account – Credibility (Sections 302(b), 397, 324, 458 PPC) Eyewitness accounts, though provided by relatives, were found credible as they were present at the scene, supported by medical evidence, and withstood rigorous cross-examination. Their testimony was corroborated by the recovery of weapons, forensic evidence, and other material evidence. (Iqbal alias Bhalla v. The State, 1994 SCMR 1; Abdul Ghafoor v. The State, 2000 SCMR 919). ------ 2. Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Ocular Testimony (Section 302, PPC) Medical evidence, while secondary, supported the ocular testimony. It is settled that where there is direct and convincing eyewitness testimony, discrepancies with medical evidence may be overlooked. (Sarfraz v. The State, 2000 SCMR 1758; Machia v. The State, PLD 1976 SC 695). ------ 3. FIR – Prompt Lodging – Consultation or Deliberation – Allegations (Section 154, CrPC) The FIR was promptly lodged, containing sufficient details of the incident. The defense’s claim of delay and deliberation was not supported by evidence. A prompt FIR strengthens the prosecution's case. (Tarique Parvez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345). ------ 4. Interested Witnesses – Evidentiary Value (Section 342, CrPC) The testimony of related witnesses was not discarded solely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased. For safe administration of justice, corroboration was sought, and their statements were verified against other material evidence. (Muhammad Hanif v. State, PLD 1993 SC 895). ------ 5. Motive – Failure to Prove – Effect (Section 302(b), PPC) Prosecution’s claim of robbery as the motive was not believable in the circumstances, given the proximity of the accused and the complainant. The facts suggested that the incident involved resistance to abduction rather than robbery. Lack of motive does not negate the prosecution's case if other evidence substantiates the charges. (Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State, 2018 SCMR 911). ------ 6. Defense Version – Juxtaposition with Prosecution Evidence – Rejection (Section 342, CrPC) The defense failed to produce any credible evidence to substantiate its version that the accused acted in self-defense or that the deceased invited the accused. Their claims were contradicted by prosecution witnesses and material evidence. ------ 7. Sentencing – Life Imprisonment in Place of Death Penalty – Mitigating Circumstances (Section 302(b), PPC) Given the distorted background and concealment of facts by both parties, the death sentence of the appellants was converted to life imprisonment. The remaining convictions and sentences under other sections were upheld. (Syed Ali v. Nibaran Mollah, PLD 1962 SC 502). ------ Disposition: Death Sentence Converted: Convictions under Section 302(b), PPC, modified to life imprisonment. Convictions Under Section 397, PPC Set Aside: Lack of evidence to establish robbery as the motive. Remaining Sentences Upheld: Convictions and sentences under Sections 458, 324, PPC, and related provisions maintained.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497 & S. 497(5)---Bail---Principles governing grant and cancellation of bail---Accused-appellant, a woman, was granted bail by the trial court, but the Shariat Court cancelled the same---Legality of cancellation examined. Accused-appellant was charged under Ss. 302, 324, 458, and 34, P.P.C. for alleged connivance in the murder of her mother-in-law. The case against the accused primarily rested on a confessional statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., which was later retracted, and the recovery of a Shalwar allegedly stained with semen. Prosecution contended that accused had illicit relations with the co-accused and conspired to eliminate her mother-in-law, who had witnessed her interactions. However, the FIR was registered a day after the occurrence, without nominating the accused, and no direct evidence connected her to the crime. The confessional statement was recorded after 24 days of the occurrence and required further inquiry into its voluntariness. Furthermore, the recovery of the Shalwar occurred 13 days after the incident, requiring corroboration. The accused, being a woman, was entitled to the benefit of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., which permits bail in cases of further inquiry. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, considering these factors, held that the order of the Shariat Court cancelling bail was not a lawful exercise of jurisdiction and reinstated the bail granted by the trial court. Held, the appeal was accepted, and the accused was granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 200,000 with one surety of the same amount. (b) Criminal Procedure--- ----Evidentiary value of retracted confessions---Confession recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., when retracted, must be evaluated in light of corroborative evidence. A confessional statement made by an accused can form the basis of conviction only if found voluntary, true, and free from coercion. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir reiterated the settled principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration in material particulars before reliance can be placed upon it. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroboration in this case, thereby rendering the confessional statement unreliable for denying bail. ----Cited Cases: Khalid Javed Gillani v. The State PLD 1978 SC 256 Zahid Paris v. The State 1995 SCR 104 The State v. Minhun alias Gul Hassan PLD 1964 SC 813 Ali Akbar v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 890

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal trial—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337, 458, 109 & 34----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417 Acquittal of accused—Scope—Accused were charged with murder based on a dying declaration by the deceased—Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including a ‘Chadar’ found at the crime scene and recovery of weapons from the accused—Dying declaration was recorded by the investigating officer instead of a doctor, though the medical officer was present—Held, a police officer should not be encouraged to record dying declarations in cases he is investigating, as this creates doubt regarding impartiality—Absence of direct and independent evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case—Inconsistencies in the statement of the only eyewitness (wife of the deceased) undermined the reliability of the testimony—Recovery of weapons from accused also doubtful, as police failed to associate independent witnesses in the process—Where there is a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the benefit must go to the accused—Trial Court rightly acquitted accused by extending benefit of doubt—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. (b) Dying Declaration—Admissibility and credibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46 Dying declaration must be recorded by a competent authority such as a magistrate or doctor, unless exceptional circumstances exist—In the instant case, dying declaration was written by the investigating officer despite the presence of a medical officer, rendering it unreliable—Police officer recording a dying declaration in a case under investigation creates doubt regarding fairness—Statement of deceased failed to provide conclusive identification of assailants—Acquittal of accused upheld in light of legal precedent that benefit of doubt must favor the accused in criminal cases. (c) Criminal trial—Presumption of innocence—Double presumption after acquittal: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417 Presumption of innocence is further strengthened after acquittal—To overturn an acquittal, the order must be found perverse, arbitrary, or wholly unsupported by evidence—Prosecution failed to establish compelling reasons for reversing the trial court’s decision—Superior courts consistently hold that once an accused is acquitted, interference is only warranted in cases of gross misreading or misapplication of law—High Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning—Acquittal maintained. ----Cited Cases: • Imran Ashraf v. The State [2012 YLR (F.Sh.C) 325] • More v. The State (2013 PCr.LJ 1730) • Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram & another (2014 SCR 351) • Muhammad Ismaeel Khan v. Saiiad Hussain & 14 others (2014 SCR 442) • Abdul Majeed & 4 others v. Muhammad Latif & 3 others (2016 SCR 1306) ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of accused upheld.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b) & 458 ---- Murder conviction based on ocular testimony and medical evidence ---- Appellant convicted for firing at deceased's right thigh and abdomen, causing fatal injuries ---- Ocular account provided by witnesses consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence ---- FIR lodged promptly, excluding any possibility of fabrication or mistaken identity ---- Recovery of weapon inconsequential due to lack of ballistic evidence linking it to the crime ---- Motive of land dispute asserted by prosecution remained unproven ---- Death sentence converted to life imprisonment due to mitigating factors, including unproven motive and inconclusive recovery evidence ---- Appeal dismissed, conviction maintained, and sentence reduced. Cited Cases: • Noor Sultan v. The State 2021 SCMR 176 • Shaheen Ijaz alias Babu v. The State 2021 SCMR 500 • Kamran v. The State 2024 SCMR 1419 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 173, 342, & 382-B ---- Ocular evidence supported by medical findings deemed sufficient to uphold conviction ---- Appellant named in promptly lodged FIR, ensuring reliability and ruling out substitution ---- Trial court's findings affirmed regarding guilt under S. 302(b) PPC ---- Mitigating circumstances considered for reduction of death penalty ---- Appellant granted benefit under S. 382-B Cr.P.C., ensuring time already served is accounted for. Cited Cases: • Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188 (c) Forensic Evidence and Medical Jurisprudence ---- Autopsy findings consistent with injuries described in the ocular account ---- Cause of death due to hemorrhage and shock from injuries to major blood vessels ---- Medical opinion supported eyewitness testimony ---- Absence of rigor mortis not deemed conclusive due to varying physiological factors ---- Recovery of weapon not linked to the crime due to absence of crime empties. Cited References: • Muhammad Sharif alias Sharifi v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 213 • Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (d) Sentencing Principles ---- Mitigating factors considered in reducing death penalty to life imprisonment ---- Failure to establish motive and inconsequential recovery of weapon weighed in sentencing ---- Courts urged to exercise utmost caution in determining quantum of punishment, balancing justice with extenuating circumstances. ----Cited Case: • Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Mst. Ughal Jan, her two sons, and her daughter. They were also convicted under Sections 458 and 379 PPC for house trespass and theft, respectively. The case was based on a report lodged on 22.11.2010 by complainant Painchi, brother of Mst. Ughal Jan, who initially reported the crime as committed by unknown individuals. The appellants were subsequently named after a supplementary statement on 24.11.2010, and the investigation led to their arrest. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence and confessional statements were sufficient to convict the appellants for murder, trespass, and theft. 2- Whether the confessional statements made by the accused were voluntary, valid, and supported by corroborative evidence. 3- Whether the recovery of weapons and other items from the accused could be relied upon for their conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circumstantial Evidence: The court noted that the prosecution's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of items and the confessional statements made by two of the appellants (Amir and Waqas-ur-Rehman). However, it found that the circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of items like ropes, a piece of cloth, and a weapon, was not sufficiently connected to the crime and lacked material impact. The recovery of the weapon and bullets did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime. --Confessional Statements: The confessional statements made by Amir and Waqas were found to be problematic. The court observed that the confessions appeared coerced and were retracted by the appellants. The statements were also exculpatory in nature, attributing the main role in the crime to the absconding co-accused, Bakhtiar. The court found that the confessions were not voluntary, as they were made after prolonged custody and failed to meet the legal requirements under Section 364 Cr.P.C. The court also noted discrepancies in the investigation, such as the delay in sending crime empties for forensic analysis. --Doubtful Investigation: The court criticized the investigation, pointing out that no effort was made to collect crucial evidence, such as mobile phone data, fingerprints, or information on the ownership of the mobile phone found at the crime scene. The police also failed to properly investigate the ownership of items recovered from the scene. --Benefit of the Doubt: Due to the lack of credible evidence, contradictions in the confessional statements, and the flawed investigation, the court found the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The court reiterated the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit must go to the accused. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all three appellants, setting aside the conviction and sentences passed by the trial court. The court ordered the release of the appellants unless they were required in any other cases. The case against the absconding co-accused Bakhtiar was to be decided separately based on future evidence. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 302(b), 458, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) regarding the recording of confessional statements