Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302(b), 387, 404 & 34; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-A; Benefit of doubt Murder, extortion, and misappropriation of property—Benefit of doubt—The appellants were convicted under Sections 302(b), 387, and 404 PPC for the murder of a security guard, Muhammad Hussain, along with alleged extortion and misappropriation of property—The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries—Held, medical evidence was inconsistent with ocular testimony, particularly regarding the timeline of death and post-mortem findings—Extra-judicial confessions lacked credibility as they were not recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and recovery of cash and pistol remained doubtful—CCTV footage evidence was unreliable due to the accused's faces being muffled and lack of verification of sources—Prosecution failed to establish safe custody of recovered items and connection between recoveries and the alleged crime—Investigative lapses, contradictions in witness testimonies, and failure to corroborate circumstantial evidence with concrete proof created reasonable doubt—In criminal cases, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not grace. ----Cited Case: Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 (b) Criminal Evidence: ----Circumstantial evidence; Burden of proof—Principles governing circumstantial evidence—Prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt—Held, circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to a single conclusion of guilt without any plausible alternative explanation—Inconsistencies in witness accounts, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, and failure to produce supporting witnesses from CCTV footage origins weakened the prosecution case—Recovery of incriminating articles, including cash and a pistol, lacked credibility and chain of custody—The trial court failed to address these deficiencies. ----Cited Case: Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 (c) Administration of Justice: ----Burden on prosecution; Standard of proof—In criminal cases, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Minor or substantial doubts arising from inconsistencies or weak circumstantial evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused—Trial court’s reliance on flawed circumstantial evidence and unsupported recoveries amounted to a miscarriage of justice. ---Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted of all charges—Appellants ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), 3rd and 4th proviso-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Under-trial prisoner-Interpretation of S.497(1), provisos 3 & 4-Hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, how to determine-Bail-Refusal of-Dangerous and desperate persons-Contention raised that under S.497(1), Cr.P.C. bail can be refused when it is established by the prosecution that applicant is a dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal and such conclusion cannot be based merely on the allegations which are subject-matter of the trial which is yet to be concluded, cardinal rule of criminal justice being that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till such time as his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt-Contention raised being of first impression and word "criminal"having not been defined in. Cr.P. C. an authoritative construction was needed in order to determine whether under-trial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for the purposes of bail and on what material a Court is supposed to determine the question whether he is desperate or dangerous-Leave to appeal granted to consider the aforesaid contentions raising important question of law. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), proviso-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Leave to appeal, grant of-Important question of law-Contentions of first impression-Interpretation of S.497(1), Cr.P. C. 3rd and 4th provisos-Bail-Grant of-Leave to appeal granted to consider important question of law pertaining to the true interpretation and scope of the 4th proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. empowering the Court to grant bail in case of non-bailable offences and the 3rd proviso of S.497(1), Cr.P. C. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/3C7/404/l48/149, P.P.C. etc. -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Bail-Grant of-Non-appreciation of evidence-Bail refused on ground that accused petitioners were desperate or dangerous criminals-Leave to appeal granted to consider contention inter alia that High Court had failed to take into consideration material features of prosecution case not supported by its own witness. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1)-Undertrial prisoner-"Criminal"not having been defined in Criminal Procedure Code, needs to be construed authoritatively in order to determine whether undertrial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for purposes of bail and on what material a Court is supposed to determine the question whether he is desperate or dangerous. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/404/148/149, P.P.C. etc. -Presumption of innocence-Cardinal rule of criminal justice-Petitioners charged with offence of murder were refused bail on ground of being dangerous and desperate persons-Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that bail can be refused in such cases only when it is established by prosecution that the applicant is a dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal and such conclusion cannot be based merely on allegations which are subject-matter of trial which is yet to be concluded, cardinal rule of criminal justice being that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till such time as his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.-[Presumption]. (f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- -Art.185(3)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.497(1)-Undertrial prisoner-Leave to appeal-Grant of-Conflict of opinion-Held, there being conflict of opinion on true interpretation of the provisions of S.497 (1), C r. P. C. which needed to be resolved and word"criminal" having not been defined in Cr.P.C., matter needed to be construed authoritatively in order to determine whether undetrial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for purposes of bail and on what material a Court was supposed to determine the question whether he was desperate or dangerous.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S. 497, S. 497(5): Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – Ss. 302, 404, 34 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) – S. 13 Bail—Confessional statement—Delay in recording—Corroborative evidence—Discretion of trial court—Petitioner (Hazara Baig) sought bail after refusal by Sessions Judge, while the State sought cancellation of bail granted to co-accused—Petitioner’s confessional statement was recorded after a delay of 14 days, but delay alone does not render it inadmissible at bail stage—Allegations of coercion or inducement were unsupported by record—Confessional statement was not joint, making objections to its validity baseless—Recovery of the deceased’s licensed pistol from petitioner’s possession and positive forensic report on the weapon further corroborated prosecution case—Trial Judge exercised discretion in granting bail to co-accused due to lack of independent evidence against them—Held, that at bail stage, prima facie evidence against the petitioner was sufficient to justify refusal of bail—Trial court’s decision maintained—Petition for bail dismissed—Petition for cancellation of bail of co-accused also dismissed, with direction to expedite trial. -----Disposition: Bail application dismissed—Petition for cancellation of co-accused’s bail dismissed—Trial expedited.