Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 156 & 173-Reinvestigation and submission of subsequent challan in the Court-Extent and scope-No legal bar exists for reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under S.173, Cr.P.C.-Police can carry out the fresh investigation and submit its report to the Court, but this would not mean that in a case in which earlier after completion of investigation challan was submitted for trial of an offence, on which the accused had been tried and the case was finally decided upto the level of the High Court or the Supreme Court, subsequent challan would be entertained which is submitted as the result of reinvestigation or further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and that the Court would proceed with the trial of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case decided earlier by such Court. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 212 & 120-B/34-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.190-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-No supplementary challan was submitted for the offences under Ss.212 & 120-B/34, P.P.C. against the accused respondents for hatching criminal conspiracy for the murder of the deceased and for harbouring co-accused-Subsequent challan in the murder case against the respondents was submitted directly in the Trial Court after a lapse of more than five years from the date of decision of the High Court in criminal appeal, criminal acquittal appeal and criminal revision petition preferred against the judgment of the Trial Court in the murder case-Second challan for trial of the offences under Ss.212 & 120-B/34, P.P.C. had been submitted in the Trial Court which had become functus officio long before, but it directly took cognizance of the offence which was not permissible within the meaning of 5.190, Cr.P.C., and proceeded with the trial of the case after framing charge and finally convicted one accused under S.212, P.P.C. and acquitted the other accused of the charge-High Court, after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant law on the subject, had rightly set aside the conviction of the said accused and dismissed the criminal revision and criminal appeal against the acquittal of the other accused-Impugned judgment was, thus, unexceptionable-Leave to appeal was refused to complainant accordingly. Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another 1972 SCMR 335; Rehmat Ali and another v. The State 1976 SCMR 204 and Aftab Ahmed v. Hussan Arshad and 10 others PLD 1987 SC 13 distinguished. Riaz Hussain and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 156 & 173-Reinvestigation-System of reinvestigation is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people for obtaining favourable reports, which in no way assists the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion, rather they create more complications in the way of administration of justice-Such system of reinvestigation and successive investigations, therefore, was disapproved.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 212-Appreciation of evidence-Prosecution evidence was contradictory and did not inspire confidence-Accused was not proved to have harboured the person with the knowledge or belief that he had committed the offence-Confessional statement of another accused had not been put to the accused as-an incriminating piece of evidence against him in his statement recorded under 5.342, Cr.P.C. causing serious prejudice to him which was not curable under 5.537, Cr.P.C. and the same even could not be considered against the accused being a co-accused because a separate challan under S.212, P.P.C. had been submitted against him for entirely a different offence-Accused was acquitted, on benefit of doubt in circumstances. Din Muhammad v. Crown 1969 SCMR 777; Munawar Ahmed's case PLD 1956 SC(Pak.) 300; Shammun v. Crown PLD 1952 Lah. 374; PLD 1949 PC 90; PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 317; PLD 1956 SC (Ind.).186; PLD 1976 SC 404; PLD 1960. SC (Pak.) 386(?); PLD 1960 SC(Pak.) 31 and PLD 1972 Lah. 563 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Sa 212-No harbouring or concealment is punishable unless there was no offence and the accuse knew that the person harboured is the offende. (c) Administration of justice- - Confession of co-accused-Confession of co-accused cannot become the foundation of another's conviction and the same can only be considered to strengthen other evidence on record, but cannot be used to fill the gap in the prosecution evidence which night fall shock of connecting the accused with the crime-Persuasive efficacy of such confessional statement is further weakened if its maker reiles from it. PLD 1949 PC 90; PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 317; PLD 1956 SC (Ind.) 186; fLD 1976 SC 404; PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 386(?);, PLD 1960 SC 31 and PLD 1972 Lah. 563 ref. Ejaz Yousuf, Advocate-General for the State.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house- trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and Mema watch from the house of complainant---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and an eye-witness---Both the witnesses though related to each other were natural witnesses and had no enmity for false implication of accused persons in the present case---Statements of said witnesses further corroborated in material aspects with other witness/neighbor of complainant, who deposed that he and his relatives were sleeping in the house at about 3:00 am (night)---Complainant came to their house and told them that thieves had entered into his house---Said witness along with other relatives were going towards the place of occurrence---Said witnesses heard fire shots inside the house, when they reached near the house and had seen a man, who after jumping over the wall was running towards his motorbike parked with the wall---Said witness caught hold the accused with pistol in his hands with the help of complainant and other people---Said witnesses entered in the house of complainant and had seen the deceased and baby girl in a pool of blood---Statements of witness/neighbor of the complainant had also not been shaken in the cross-examination---Careful perusal of record revealed that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent throughout and there was no material contradiction and dishonest improvement to discard their testimony---No enmity, ill-will or malice had been shown to believe that the accused persons had falsely been implicated--- Ocular evidence corroborated in all material aspects was trustworthy and reliable and the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure of accused---Reliance--- Scope--- Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and a watch from the house of complainant---In pursuance of disclosure of accused, the Investigating Officer conducted raid on the house of acquitted co-accused, wherefrom he recovered the crime weapon i.e. Kalashnikov from the possession of accused and sealed the crime weapon Kalashnikov which was supported with the positive report of the firearm expert wherein it had been clearly mentioned that the five empties of bullets had been fired from the Kalashnikov---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Vicarious liability--- Scope---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and Mema watch from the house of complainant--- Accused had shared the common intention with other accused---Though the accused had not taken part in firing upon deceased or injuring baby girl, but the killing had been made during the course of robbery in furtherance of the common intention of the other accused, hence the accused had rightly been held vicariously liable for the murder of deceased by the trial Court and his conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was not open to any exception---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Arshad v. State PLD 1996 SC 122 rel