Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302, 324, 363 & 34---Murder of four family members inside house---Matrimonial dispute---Ocular account by informant, injured witness and eyewitness---Petitioner Fayyaz Akhtar, husband of deceased Mst. Aqsa Bibi, allegedly came armed with co-accused to house of his in-laws after matrimonial discord, raised lalkara and fired upon family members, resulting in death of Muhammad Zahid, Mst. Musarrat Bibi, Mst. Aqsa Bibi and Bilal Ahmad, while Faizan Ahmad sustained firearm injuries---Supreme Court held that ocular account furnished by informant, injured witness and eyewitness was straightforward, confidence-inspiring and consistent on material particulars including date, time, place, manner of assault and specific role of firing attributed to Fayyaz Akhtar. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Injured witness---Stamped witness---Evidentiary value---Injured witness Faizan Ahmad was inmate of house and sustained firearm injuries during occurrence---Supreme Court held that his presence at place of occurrence could not be doubted and his testimony carried intrinsic worth and great evidentiary value---Medical evidence supported ocular account regarding injuries sustained by deceased persons and injured witness. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Related witnesses---Close relatives of deceased---Effect---Eyewitnesses were close relatives of deceased persons---Supreme Court reiterated that close relatives who witness brutal murder of near and dear ones are least likely to substitute real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person, particularly where no previous enmity or motive for false implication is shown---No material was brought on record to suggest that witnesses had reason to falsely involve Fayyaz Akhtar while shielding actual offender. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Specific role, motive and medical corroboration---Conviction maintained---Petitioner Fayyaz Akhtar was specifically assigned active role of firing; he had direct motive arising from matrimonial dispute with deceased wife Mst. Aqsa Bibi; ocular account remained unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination and was supported by medical evidence---Supreme Court held that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt active participation and specific role of Fayyaz Akhtar in commission of offence---Conviction recorded by Courts below called for no interference. (e) Criminal trial---- ----Non-nominated accused---Subsequent nomination after three days---No source of identification disclosed---Benefit of doubt---Petitioner Ghulam Ghous was not nominated in FIR and was admittedly not known to informant at time of occurrence---He was nominated after three days by injured witness, who did not disclose source or basis of identification---Supreme Court held that if accused had been known, he would have been named in initial report---Subsequent nomination without proper basis rendered prosecution case against him doubtful. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Identification parade---Accused already named before parade---Reduced evidentiary value---Although identification parade of Ghulam Ghous was conducted, Supreme Court held that its evidentiary value was substantially diminished because he had already been named by injured witness before such parade. (g) Criminal trial---- ----General and omnibus allegation of firing---No specific injury attributed---No motive---Recovery disbelieved---Benefit of doubt---Ghulam Ghous was shown in site plan at outer/main gate whereas crime empties were recovered from courtyard; no specific injury on any deceased was attributed to him and allegation against him was general/omnibus firing along with co-accused---He had no motive against deceased persons and recovery of alleged weapon had already been disbelieved by High Court on sound reasoning---Supreme Court held that evidence against him was shaky, deficient and insufficient to sustain conviction. (h) Criminal trial---- ----Sifting grain from chaff---One accused convicted, another acquitted---Supreme Court observed that while appreciating evidence Court must sift grain from chaff---On reappraisal, prosecution evidence was reliable against Fayyaz Akhtar but insufficient against Ghulam Ghous---Conviction of Fayyaz Akhtar was maintained, while conviction and sentence of Ghulam Ghous were set aside. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 382-B---Benefit of period already undergone---Discretionary relief---Extreme brutality---Supreme Court declined benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to Fayyaz Akhtar, observing that offence reflected extreme brutality and gruesome manner in which he dealt with four close family members, including his wife, inside dwelling house---Occurrence was not result of sudden provocation or spur-of-the-moment act but reflected calculated vengeance arising out of matrimonial discord and annihilation of a segment of wife’s family---Such heinousness and betrayal of familial sanctity took case outside category where benefit under S.382-B should be extended as matter of course. (j) Sentencing---- ----Death sentence commuted by High Court to imprisonment for life---Complainant’s petition for enhancement---Refusal---High Court had commuted death sentence of Fayyaz Akhtar on four counts to imprisonment for life on four counts---Supreme Court held that findings of High Court were based on proper and judicious appraisal of attending circumstances and consistent with settled principles governing discretion in capital punishment cases---No misreading or non-reading of evidence was shown; petition seeking enhancement was dismissed. (k) Limitation---- ----Jail petition barred by 15 days---Condonation---Life imprisonment on four counts---Supreme Court condoned delay in filing jail petition in interest of justice, considering grounds urged and fact that petitioners had been awarded life imprisonment on four counts. Disposition: Jail Petition No.520 of 2018 was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentence of Ghulam Ghous were set aside and he was acquitted, with direction for release if not required in any other case; petition to extent of Fayyaz Akhtar was dismissed and leave refused; his substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was declined. Criminal Petition No.832-L of 2018 seeking enhancement of sentence of Fayyaz Akhtar was dismissed and leave refused; to extent of Ghulam Ghous, it was dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: This case involves an appeal by the appellant challenging the judgment dated April 19, 2021, by the trial court, which convicted him under Sections 376 and 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for committing zina (rape) and kidnapping a minor. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the zina charge and five years of rigorous imprisonment for the kidnapping charge, along with fines. The incident occurred on March 22, 2019, when two minor girls, Bibi Hafia (4 years old) and her cousin Bibi Saima (5 years old), were allegedly taken by the appellant to his house, where he committed zina with Saima. The appellant was arrested, and after the trial, he was convicted. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt for the offenses of zina and kidnapping. -----2- Whether the testimony of the minor victim alone was sufficient to convict the appellant. -----3- Whether the medical and forensic evidence corroborated the victim's account of the incident. -----4- Whether the trial court's judgment was legally sound and based on reliable evidence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key witness, the victim Bibi Saima (PW-5), despite being a minor, provided a coherent and consistent account of the incident. The court noted that the victim's testimony was reliable, as her mental capacity had been assessed and found adequate. She identified the appellant and described how he lured her and her cousin with ice cream and committed zina with her. The court placed significant weight on her testimony, stating that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony alone can be sufficient to convict, provided it is credible. Medical evidence provided by Dr. Ayesha Faiz (PW-2) confirmed the sexual assault, with physical signs corroborating the victim’s account. The medical examination revealed the victim’s hymen was not intact and indicated both fresh and old signs of sexual assault. The forensic evidence also supported the prosecution, as seminal material was found on the victim’s clothing. The defense’s arguments, including the claim that the victim’s statement was unreliable due to her young age, were dismissed. The court emphasized that the victim’s age did not undermine her testimony, especially since the court had found her mentally fit to testify. Additionally, the appellant’s mere denial of the charges and his failure to provide any defense or explanation weakened his case. The court rejected the defense’s argument that the victim's testimony alone was insufficient for conviction, referencing multiple precedents where the courts upheld convictions in sexual assault cases based solely on the victim's credible testimony. The prompt filing of the FIR, along with the absence of any indication of prior enmity or false implication, further supported the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s conviction and sentence were upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Muzammil Shah v. State, 1991 MLD 1944 (regarding the reliability of a minor’s testimony in sexual assault cases). Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State, 2006 SCMR 1042 (solitary testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can be sufficient for conviction if credible). Mushtaq Ahmed and another v. The State, 2007 SCMR 473 (corroboration of the victim's testimony by medical evidence in rape cases). Kamran alias Kami v. The State, 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 (regarding the reliability of a victim's testimony in family honor matters).

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR: The petitioner, Mst. Rabia, stated under oath and through affidavit that she willingly married Sanaullah, and no abduction had occurred. Continuing criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 365-B, 109, and 34 PPC based on the FIR would constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Held: FIR No. 29/2017 and all related proceedings were quashed. (b) Statements Under Section 164 CrPC – Validity: The petitioner's statement under Section 164 CrPC, recorded before the Magistrate, affirmed her free will in contracting the marriage. Such statements, corroborated by an affidavit, hold significant evidentiary value and override claims of coercion or abduction in the absence of contrary evidence. Held: A statement affirming free will in marriage suffices to nullify allegations of abduction if no contrary evidence exists. (c) Abuse of Court Process: When the facts of a case demonstrate that criminal proceedings lack merit or are based on misrepresentations, continuing such proceedings is an unnecessary burden on judicial resources. Held: Criminal proceedings initiated without substantive evidence are liable to be quashed. ----Cited Law: Pakistan Penal Code (Sections 363, 365-B, 109, and 34) – Related to kidnapping, abduction, and common intention. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 561-A) – Inherent powers of the court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the Chief Court was set aside, and FIR No. 29/2017 along with related proceedings were quashed.

Summary: Background: This case concerns a custody dispute between divorced parents over two minor daughters. The mother filed a petition to quash a criminal FIR filed by the father under Sections 363/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), accusing her of unlawfully withholding the children after a family visit. The father alleged that the mother refused to return the children and thus filed a complaint with the police, resulting in a criminal case. The mother argued that, as the natural guardian, she could not be criminally charged for keeping custody of her children, and further alleged that the father, a Supreme Court employee, used his influence to register the FIR. -----Issues: 1- Whether an FIR can be filed against a natural guardian (mother) for retaining custody of her own children under Sections 363/34 of PPC. -----2- Whether habeas corpus under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is applicable in custody disputes when children are with a natural guardian. -----3- Whether the mention of the father's employment with the Supreme Court in the FIR impacted the fairness of the trial. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the FIR was inappropriate and that the matter of custody should have been pursued through a Guardian Court, not through criminal proceedings. Since the mother, as a natural guardian, was lawfully entitled to custody, her refusal to hand over the children did not constitute kidnapping or an offense under Section 363 PPC. The court quashed the FIR, as the criminal charge was found baseless. Additionally, the father’s habeas corpus petition was dismissed, as Section 491 Cr.P.C. is not applicable for custody disputes when the minors are with a natural guardian. The court also expressed concerns about the mention of the father’s Supreme Court position in the FIR, suggesting it may have influenced the registration process. It directed that any future mention of a court in an FIR must first receive approval from the Registrar to avoid potential biases. -----Citations/Precedents: Kausar Parveen vs. The State [PLD 2008 Lahore 533] Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore vs. Muhammad Akram Khan [PLD 2013 SC 401] Rehmat Ali vs. Ahmad Din [1991 SCMR 185] Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed [2000 SCMR 122] Muhammad Mansha vs. Station House Officer [PLD 2006 SC 598] Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq [2006 SCMR 276] Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] Shahnaz Begum vs. The Judges of High Court of Sind and Baluchistan [PLD 1971 SC 677] Mst Nadia Parveen vs. Mst Almas Noreen [PLD 2012 SC 758]

Summary: Acquittal granted ----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363––Kidnapping––Benefit of doubt––Unexplained delay in lodging FIR––Effect––Delay held to be deliberate and after due consultation. Occurrence allegedly took place on 04.05.2010, yet FIR was lodged on 07.05.2010, with a three-day unexplained delay despite the police station being only 3 km away––Held, delay in reporting was not reasonably explained and appears to be result of deliberation––Reliance placed on Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741)––Such delay casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version––Conviction based on doubtful evidence held unsustainable. (b) Criminal trial––False implication––Implicating large number of accused without assigning specific role––Adverse inference––Evidentiary value. Complainant implicated sixteen accused, but no specific role was assigned to any of them––Only Zahid Hussain was convicted while rest were acquitted or discharged––Complainant himself admitted during cross-examination that he could not name the person who abducted his son––Such sweeping allegations without particulars held to be inherently unreliable––Conviction cannot be sustained where involvement of accused is vague and uncorroborated. (c) Criminal trial––Investigation––Non-production of key witness––Effect of withholding best available evidence––Presumption under Art. 129(g), QSO 1984. Prosecution relied on alleged statement of Mst. Bushra Bibi implicating the appellant but failed to produce her as a witness or record her statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C––Held, non-production of best available witness raises presumption that her testimony would have been unfavourable to prosecution––Drawing of adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, justified––Reliance placed on Muhammad Rafique v. The State PLJ 2011 SC 191. (d) Criminal trial––Extra-judicial confession––Nature––Evidentiary value––Requirement of corroboration. Alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was uncorroborated––Held, extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak type of evidence and ordinarily fabricated where independent evidence is lacking––No conviction can be safely based solely on such weak evidence––Failure to establish chain of circumstantial evidence renders prosecution case doubtful. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B––Benefit of doubt––Missing child––Emotional factor––Court to decide on evidence not sentiment. While Court noted the emotional impact of the minor’s continued disappearance, it reiterated that judicial verdicts must rest on legally admissible evidence, not on emotion or sympathy––Benefit of doubt must be given where prosecution evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks credible corroboration––Appellant acquitted. ---- Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 43770 of 2019 allowed; conviction and sentence of Zahid Hussain set aside; appellant acquitted. Criminal Appeal No. 53561 of 2019 (against acquittal of co-accused) dismissed as infructuous.