Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b) & 394—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt—Acquittal Prosecution case rested on two eyewitnesses whose testimonies contained material contradictions and improvements; medical/forensic and recovery evidence did not inspire confidence. Where doubt arises on the substratum of the prosecution case, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right. Conviction under Ss.302(b) & 394, PPC was set aside and the accused acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Hassan v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 • Abdul Samad v. The State 2025 SCP 31 • Tariq Parvez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 • Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857 (b) Law of Evidence—Chance witnesses—Requirement of satisfactory explanation Both eyewitnesses (PW-7 complainant and PW-8) were “chance witnesses” at the locus in quo and failed to furnish convincing reasons for their presence on the exact route/time—such testimony is ordinarily viewed with suspicion unless a plausible, natural explanation is offered; absent such explanation, reliance is unsafe. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142 (c) Criminal trial—Improvements/omissions—Effect on credibility Material “improvements,” including a later-introduced allegation of a heated exchange preceding the firing not found in the prompt FIR/earlier statement, rendered portions of PW-7’s testimony doubtful; PW-8 did not corroborate the alleged exchange. Material omissions/improvements shake the veracity of ocular account. (d) Forensic evidence—Simultaneous dispatch of crime empty and weapon—Linkage rendered inconsequential Crime empty recovered from the scene and pistol allegedly recovered at the accused’s instance were dispatched together to the FSL on the same day; such concurrent transmission undermines the evidentiary value of the positive matching report and the recoveries become inconsequential for corroboration. (e) Recovery proceedings—Lack of independent mashirs despite availability—Doubtful recoveries Gold ring and wallet (with cash and CNIC copy) were allegedly recovered on personal search at a time when public and forest-department personnel had encircled the accused; failure to associate independent witnesses, despite availability, rendered these recoveries doubtful. Joint pointation-recovery of the motorcycle from inside the jungle, though possible without independent mashirs, could not by itself sustain conviction without reliable ocular support. (f) Prior proceedings—Remand and sentence modification—Context Earlier conviction (19.04.2010) was set aside by High Court for want of a clear finding regarding a co-accused and the case was remanded; on retrial, Trial Court again convicted (06.01.2017). High Court (14.05.2018) maintained convictions but converted petitioner’s death sentence to life for S.302(b) PPC and reduced S.394 PPC sentence to 10 years’ R.I.—Supreme Court, however, found the prosecution case riddled with doubt and set aside both convictions. Disposition: Jail Petition converted into appeal and allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court (06.01.2017) and modified/maintained by the High Court (14.05.2018) set aside; appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt; to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Short order dated 10.09.2025; reasons recorded subsequently.)

Summary: (a) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)--- ----S.10(2)---Prosecutor---Disciplinary proceedings---Pre-condition--- Prosecutor who does not apply his independent mind while taking prosecutorial decisions or giving opinions exposes himself to a legal action by Prosecutor General under S.10(2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 which again regards the prosecutors as public servants--- Provision of S.10 (2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 reinforces independence of criminal prosecution service that until Prosecutor General recommends, no authority in government can take action against prosecutors. (b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)--- ----S. 17--- Code of Conduct for Prosecutors (Punjab) 2016, para 5.12---Public interest---Scope--- Para 5.12 of Code of Conduct for Prosecutors issued in 2016 by Prosecutor General Punjab lays down following factors of public interest which must be kept in mind by prosecutors while applying public interest test; a) How serious is the offence? b) Extent of culpability of offender. c) Circumstances of victim. d) Age and circumstances of offender. e) Impact of offence on community. f) Remorse shown by offender or actions taken by him to undo the wrong. g) Is prosecution a proportionate response? (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394 & 411--- Robbery and recovery of stolen property--- Bail, grant of--- Delay in conclusion of trial---Trial Court framed charge on 29-04-2025 and prosecution was responsible for causing delay in conclusion of trial--- Accused had been behind the bars since 18-07-2023 and had already completed his statutory period of one year--- Accused made out a case for bail not only on merits but on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial as well--- There was no likelihood of conclusion of trial of accused in near future--- Relief on the basis of such right so accrued in favour of accused could not be refused to him unless he was found to be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, a previous convict for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but no such exception was found against accused--- Bail was allowed, in circumstances. Javid Khan v. Arshad Khan and another PLD 2024 SC 73; Riaz Hanif Rahi and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2008 SC 587; Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Sindh Secretariat and another v. Prosecutor-General Sindh, Criminal Prosecution Department and others 2012 SCMR 307; The Public Interest we know it’s Important, But Do We Know What it Means by Chris Wheeler. 3; The Public Interest: Its Meaning in Democracy by Anthony Downs; Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 SC 482 and Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal and 21 others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others PLD 2024 Lah. 12 ref. Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Akhtar v. Khawas Khan and another 2024 SCMR 476; Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1 and Nadeem Samson v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 112 rel. Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioner. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ijaz, ASI for the State. Complainant in person.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 394, 397, 337-F(ii) & 34—Robbery and hurt—Scope of prohibitory clause Offences alleged against the applicant carried maximum punishments of four, seven, and three years respectively and thus did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Bail to be considered liberally in such circumstances unless exceptional factors exist. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S.497(2)—Bail—Further inquiry—Delayed identification parade—Absence of recovery Applicant arrested on 14.05.2023 but shown arrested in the case on 15.05.2023—Identification parade held after ten days, without explanation for delay—Such belated parade held unreliable and lost evidentiary value—No recovery of robbed cash, articles, or phone from applicant—Allegation of using robbed SIM card unsupported by seizure of phone or connecting material—Case found fit for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail granted accordingly. Irfan v. State 2018 YLR 85 and Muhammad Idrees v. State 2023 MLD 1972 relied upon. (c) Evidence—Identification parade—Delay—Effect Identification parade held after lapse of ten days from arrest—Unexplained delay renders the process doubtful—Reliance on such identification without corroborative recovery or contemporaneous evidence held unsafe for denial of bail. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Principles governing grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences When the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail becomes a rule and refusal an exception—Continued detention before conclusion of trial amounts to pre-trial punishment. (e) Practice and procedure—Conditions of bail and caution Bail granted subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations held tentative and not to prejudice trial; court empowered to cancel bail if misused. Cited cases: • Irfan v. The State 2018 YLR 85 • Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2023 MLD 1972 (g) Disposition — Bail application allowed—Applicant Lal Muhammad released on bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. on furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations declared tentative and without prejudice to trial proceedings.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394/302/411/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Mangamandi Police Station, Lahore. The petitioner argues that granting bail is essential for the fair administration of criminal justice. According to the prosecution's version of events mentioned in the crime report, two brothers of the complainant were robbed at gunpoint while traveling on a motorbike. One of the brothers, Saifullah, was shot in the head and died, while the other brother, Muhammad Nawaz, was shot in the leg. The petitioner, who is Saifullah's wife, was implicated in the case based on the complainant's supplementary statement. The allegation against the petitioner is that she conspired with one of the accused, provided information, and played a role in the crime due to alleged illicit relations. The petitioner's counsel argues that she has been falsely implicated and that there is no concrete evidence connecting her to the crime, except for the allegations in the supplementary statement. The defense disputes the significance of the Call Data Record (CDR) as conclusive evidence and emphasizes that no incriminating material was found during the investigation. Additionally, the petitioner is described as an elderly woman and claims that she should not be detained without tangible proof. The State, represented by the Additional Prosecutor General, opposes the grant of bail, asserting that the petitioner was specifically named in the supplementary statement and that the CDR indicates her contact with the alleged perpetrator of the crime. After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the available record, the court finds that the petitioner was not initially named in the crime report and was only implicated later based on the supplementary statement. The court notes that the supplementary statement lacks specific details regarding the conspiracy, such as the date, time, place, witnesses, or concrete evidence of the petitioner's involvement. The court further observes that the CDR alone does not establish the petitioner's guilt. As the petitioner's presence is no longer required for investigation purposes, the court concludes that keeping her in custody indefinitely would not be in the interest of justice. Consequently, the court converts the petition into an appeal, allowing it and setting aside the Lahore High Court's order dated April 20, 2022. The petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds worth Rs. 100,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The detailed reasons for the court's decision are provided in the order dated September 22, 2022.

Summary: Sections 393/394/100 PPC.i. Though the accused-petitioners are named in the FIR and were arrested in injured condition on the spot yet, in the wake of the fact that they had muffled their faces; no identification parade was conducted, no crime weapon was recovered, the complainant party not receiving single fire arm injury or even scratch from the indiscriminate firing, one of the petitioners admitted in the hospital was serious, the sections of law are not attracted in the given circumstances.ii. All such grounds make this case one of further inquiry. Bail allowed.

Summary: The petitioner was tried for the murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced him to death. He was also convicted under Section 394 PPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine, as well as under Section 449 PPC and sentenced to five years of RI and a fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the Lahore High Court maintained the conviction but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life and upheld the other sentences and compensation order. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. They highlighted the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of eyewitnesses, and the reliance on hearsay statements. The counsel also pointed out flaws in the dying declaration and the recoveries made by the police. The State's representative did not support the impugned judgment and agreed with the petitioner's arguments. After considering the arguments and examining the evidence on record, the Supreme Court found significant doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The delay in filing the FIR, the absence of an eyewitness, and the lack of corroboration raised concerns about the authenticity of the prosecution's version. The court observed that the dying declaration lacked legal backing and the investigating officer responsible for recording it was not produced in court. The recovery of evidence was also deemed inconsequential due to the absence of independent witnesses and procedural lapses. Based on these factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release unless he was detained or required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by the complainant and his companion---Statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution clearly showed that they had contradicted each other on material points giving rise to doubt that either eye-witness was not present at the time of occurrence or the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as narrated by the complainant in the Murasila---Thus, such inconsistent testimony was not worth reliance---Injured complainant was medically examined on 16,05.2019 at 10.45 pm by Medical Officer---Said Medical Officer appeared before the Court and stated in his cross-examination that the injured was discharged on 17.5.2019, however, the injured complainant stated in his cross examination that he remained hospitalized for six days and was discharged from hospital on 22.5.2019--- Eye-witness sated in his cross-examination that the accused confronted them face to face---Similarly, complainant stated in his cross-examination that as per site plan and his statement, accused facing trial were in front of him---In view of his position at the time of occurrence, complainant should have sustained injury on front side of his body, but to the contrary, in the later part of his cross-examination, complainant stated that he sustained one bullet injury on the back side---Thus, the medical evidence too did not support the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---As per narration of the complainant in the Murasila, eye-witness fired at the accused in self defence, however, he did not state that any one of the accused were injured with the said firing---Eye-witness in his Court statement stated that he started firing at accused after their firing which missed---Occurrence had taken place on 16.05.2019, whereas the accused/appellant herein along with co-accused were arrested on 17.05.2019 by the police---Investigating Officer stated that on cursory interrogation, two of them were injured---Investigating Officer admitted that at the time of arrest of accused, two of them were in injured condition---Statement of said witness clearly contradicted the statement of eye-witness who stated that though he fired in self defence but missed---It was not believable that the two accused were roaming on motorcycle for the whole night and next day till 11.40 am in injured condition in the same clothes---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No consistency in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---Investigating Officer of the case stated that accused were arrested by local police in case FIR No. 780 dated 16.5.2019 under Ss. 394, 324, 427 & 34 P.P.C/15-AA and were confined in Central Jail, therefore, vide application, he applied for zamima bay which was issued accordingly---Investigating Officer formally arrested the accused and prepared their card of arrest and vide recovery memos took into possession their blood stained clothes---Said two recovery memos were available on record bearing the date of its preparation as 24.5.2019 showing recovery of blood stained clothes of co-accused consisting of qamees shalwar which bore two bullet cut marks---Contents of those recovery memos showed that the accused were taken out from Central Jail through zamima bay and on search of the accused, both the accused were having shopping bags containing their blood stained clothes---It was not appealable to a prudent mind that why their clothes were not taken into possession when they were arrested on 17.5.2019 in Case FIR No.781 under S.15-AA and also in case FIR 780 dated 16.5.2019 under Ss. 394, 324, 427 & 34 P.P.C/15-AA by the police---Notable that no injury sheets of the injured co-accused were prepared by the police after their arrest neither they were medically examined---Investigation Officer in his cross examination admitted that he had not obtained medical examination report of injured accused---Further stated that he had produced the accused facing trial at the time of obtaining their custody who were found fit---Thus the statements of witnesses were not consistent on the point of the two accused being injured which had created dent in the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---In the present case, 30 bore pistol was recovered from accused/appellant which was also taken into possession as weapon used in the commission of offence---Said pistol along with the pistol recovered from co-accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for matching with the two empties recovered from the place of accused and the Forensic Science Laboratory reported that two empties were fired from each pistol---According to the narration of complainant in the Murasila, three accused came on motorcycle out of whom, one fired at them, thus in such scenario the positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report had lost its evidentiary value---Even otherwise, the opinion of the Expert had a corroborative value only and was useful for ascertaining whether the direct evidence was true or not---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97; Zeeshan v. The State 2012 SCMR 428 and Nasir Javaid and another v. The State 2016 SCMR 1144 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22--- Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---Perusing the contents of the Murasila/FIR, the complainant did not disclose the features or description (hulya) of the assailant (s)---In his Court statement too, complainant admitted that he had not given description/feature/complexion in his report as well as in his statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C.---Where no description of the accused was given in the FIR, identification parade lost its evidentiary value---Furthermore, neither in the Murasila nor in their statements under S.164 Cr.P.C specific role had been attributed to the accused/appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. State/Government of Sindh through Advocate General Sindh Karachi v. Subharo 1993 SCMR 585; Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State 2012 SCMR 522 and Amanullah v. Muhammad Ashfaq and another 2018 YLR Note169 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single doubt created in the prosecution case would be sufficient to be resolved in favour of the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel. Muhammad Qamar Nadeem Afridi for Appellant. Bashar Naveed, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 10th June, 2021.

Summary: The case involves Umar Zaib (petitioner) seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394 & 411 PPC at Police Station Taxila, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleges that four unknown perpetrators invaded the complainant's house, inflicted injuries, and robbed valuables. Umar Zaib, along with three others, was identified as the culprits during judicial identification proceedings. Initially, three co-accused were granted bail by the learned ASJ, Taxila, based on the ground of lack of recovery of stolen items. However, the court found flaws in the bail orders, particularly the disregard for identification proceedings and criminal antecedents. Therefore, a notice for cancellation of bail was issued. Upon examination, it was revealed that the accused had criminal track records and were identified during judicial proceedings. Additionally, stolen articles were recovered, and medical reports supported the complainant's injuries. The court determined that the bail orders suffered from perversity and contravened statutory and judicial directives. The court, invoking its powers under Article 203 of the Constitution and Sections 435 & 439 of the Cr.P.C., revoked the bail orders and ordered the accused to be taken into custody. It emphasized the importance of maintaining procedural stringency in criminal cases and ensuring justice is served. The State through Advocte-General N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 173): Courts must consider fresh grounds in subsequent bail applications. Amir Masih v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1524): The rule of fresh ground applies even if an earlier bail petition is withdrawn after some arguments. Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 126): High Courts can exercise revisional powers over subordinate courts to ensure justice. The State v. Muhammad Nazir and others (PLD 1991 Lahore 433): High Courts can cancel bail granted by subordinate courts through suo moto notice in revisional jurisdiction. The judgment underscores the courts' duty to uphold justice and the need for adherence to legal procedures, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like robbery.

Summary: Sentences to run concurrently----The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, in a case registered at Police Station Sargodha Cantt. The convictions included charges under sections 302/34 PPC (death penalty on two counts), sections 394/34 PPC (life imprisonment), and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (life imprisonment).The petitioner filed appeals and review petitions, seeking relief due to her age and health conditions, as well as the excessive duration of her cumulative sentences, which amounted to 100 years. Reference was made to precedents such as Javed Shaikh v. The State (1985 SCMR 153),Shahista Bibi v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and 2 others (PLD 2015 SC 15),Rahib Ali v. The State (2018 SCMR 418).The court considered particularly section 35 Cr.P.C., which limited total imprisonment to 25 years in one trial. The court acknowledged the discretion granted by section 35 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentences, emphasizing the need for a humane approach in sentencing. Precedents such as Shahista Bibi's case were cited to support this interpretation.Based on these considerations, the court accepted the petitioner's plea and ordered her life imprisonment sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.In conclusion, the petition was accepted.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for forcibly taking away the motorbike of thecomplainant after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of thecomplainant, his right hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---When thecomplainant was subjected to cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the day ofoccurrence, he attempted to molest the accused---Record showed that the age of the accusedwas seventeen years, which was mentioned in the statement of the accused recorded underS.164, Cr.P.C. as well as in his statement recorded under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.---InvestigatingOfficer stated during cross-examination that the accused filed an application for registrationof the FIR against the complainant in respect of molesting him---Said witness further statedduring cross-examination that he conducted an inquiry under S.157(2), Cr.P.C., however, hestated that the father of the accused did not produce any witness in the said inquiry---Witnessfurther stated during cross-examination that the accused was a student---On the other hand,the record transpired that the age of the complainant was thirty six years---According to themedical certificate, the complainant received two injuries on his hand and there was slightlyabrasion marks on his neck, meaning thereby that both the accused and the complainantscuffled with each other at the time of occurrence---Student of the age of 16/17 years couldnot tie the hands and feet of a person of the age of the complainant, i.e. 36 years--- Complainant stated that he came struggling to the road and told the people that the accusedwas a thief and was trying to snatch his motorcycle---Complainant stated that people caughthold of the accused and informed the levies officials---Said fact did not appeal to a prudentmind as to how did the complainant come to the road and told the people about theoccurrence, even though his hands and feet were tied and the accused would still wait thepeople and the levies officials to come and arrest him---Circumstances established that theprosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused wascharged for taking away the motorbike of the complainant forcibly after tiding his hands andfeet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, his right hand was injured, howeveraccused was apprehended---Recovery witness of the knife stated that he reached the place of occurrence along with the Investigation Officer and recovered the knife from theaccused/appellant---Said witness stated during cross-examination that they reached the placeof occurrence at 1:10 pm and remained there for fifteen minutes---Witness further statedduring cross-examination that they took the accused and reached the Levies Thana at 2:10pm.---On the other hand, the Investigating Officer stated that the investigation was handedover to him at 2:00 p.m. and he reached the place of occurrence at 2:30 p.m., complainantand other levies officials were present at the spot---Alleged occurrence took place at 1:00p.m. and the FIR was registered on the same date at 1:50 p.m.---Said contradictory statementof both the said witnesses with regard to the time of lodging FIR casted reasonable doubt inthe prosecution case and it had not come on record as to how and who recorded the statementof the complainant and whether the statement was recorded on the spot or the levies thana---Circum-stances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accusedbeyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(c) Criminal trial-------Witness--- Eye-witnesses, statement of--- Contradictions--- Effect--- Person makingcontradictions and improvements could not be held worthy of credence.(d) Criminal trial-------Witness---Injured witness---Scope---Injuries of a witness was only an indication of hispresence at the spot but was not informative proof of his credibility and truth.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Reliance--- Scope---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Record showed that knife ascrime weapon was recovered from the possession of accused---Recovery witness of thealleged occurrence stated that when he reached the place of occurrence and knife wasrecovered from the accused---Said witness, during cross-examination, stated that when theyreached the place of occurrence, many people had gathered at the spot, who had apprehendedthe accused---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that accused who had beenapprehended by the people would keep the knife with himself till the time when the leviesofficials reached, i.e. after ten minutes---Said aspect of the matter created reasonable doubtin the prosecution case---Even otherwise, the prosecution did not produce any corroborativeevidence in support of the statement of recovery witness and none of the other witnessesstated a single word to the effect that the knife was recovered from the accused---Recoverywitness stated during cross-examination that the knife, which was produced before the courtwas not stained with blood---Investigating Officer also did not send the knife to the ForensicScience Laboratory, therefore, that piece of evidence provided no help to the prosecution'scase.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Confessional statementof accused---Scope---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Record showed that thestatement of the accused was recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C had not corroborated with theFIR as well as the statement of the complainant---Accused neither stated a single word thathe tied the hands and feet of the complainant nor he stated a single word that he kept theknife on the neck of the complainant and tried to snatch his motorcycle---Circumstancesestablished that prosecution failed to establish case against accused.(g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164---Confession, recording of---Judicial Magistrate, before recording the confessionalstatement of the accused, was to essentially observe all the mandatory precautions as perHigh Court Rules and Orders so that all signs of fear inculcated by the investigation agencyin the mind of the accused were to be shed out.(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, recordingof---Procedure---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---No precautionary measures,which, in the circumstances of the case, were pre-requisite for recording the confession of aminor accused were observed---Accused, being a minor was provided with no opportunity ofcounselling, neither by his guardian nor by a lawyer---Judicial Magistrate did not state asingle word in his statement as well as in the certificate issued by her that any offer wasmade to the accused for counselling---Confession of the minor was to be assessed on thesame touchstone as to that of the statement of a child witness---Child witness was brought tothe dock by relatives while on the contrary child accused was brought to the court by PoliceOfficials for recording his confessional statement where the possibility of tutoring and policefear was always there---Judicial Magistrate did not put the question to the accused that afterrecording his statement he would not be handed over to police or levies---Judicial Magistratefilled the answers without adhering to the codal formalities and without considering theintellectual level of the minor who was unaware of the consequences of his statement---Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of the accused under S.164, Cr.P.C handedover the accused to the same levies officials who produced him before her to take him forjudicial remand---Confessional statement of the accused in circumstances, was not voluntaryand gross illegality was committed by Judicial Magistrate.Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 and State through AdvocateGeneral Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others PLD 1995 SC 1 rel.(i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, recordingof---Infirmities---Effect---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of thecomplainant forcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of thecomplainant, his right hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Recordshowed that the Judicial Magistrate had not given sufficient time for reflection beforerecording the statement of the accused under S.164, Cr.P.C. as it was incumbent upon her tohave given sufficient time for reflection, i.e. thirty minutes, with three intervals; henceforthby not doing so, Judicial Magistrate failed to observe pre-cautions held necessary beforerecording confessional statement---Neither the Judicial Magistrate stated a single word in herstatement that she gave time for reflection to the accused nor mentioned the time ofreflection in her certificate issued beneath the confessional statement of the accused---Judicial Magistrate stated during cross-examination that she recorded the statement of theaccused under S.164, Cr.P.C within 15/20 minutes---Investigating Officer stated duringcross-examination that Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused within halfhour---Said fact showed that no time for reflection had been given to the accused beforerecording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., as envisaged under S.364, Cr.P.C., thereforethe confessional statement of the accused did not appear to be true and voluntary.(j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about ten daysin recording the confessional statement of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged fortaking away the motorbike of the complainant forcibly after tiding his hands and feet withrope and due to resistance of the complainant, his right hand was injured, however accusedwas apprehended---Record showed that the accused was arrested and he was produced beforethe Judicial Magistrate after ten days of his arrest for recording his confessional statementunder S.164, Cr.P.C.---Said delay had not been plausibly explained by the prosecution,which had highly injured its credibility and the same could not be accepted as confidenceinspiring against the accused.Naqeebullah's case PLD 1978 SC 21; Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003SCMR 1419; Shoukat Saeed v. The State PLD 1978 Quetta 1 and Pato and another v. TheState 2012 MLD 1358 rel.(k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164--- Confessional statement---Evidentiary value--- Confessional statement was not tobe accepted as a substantive piece of evidence to place conviction on it alone unless it wascorroborated in each and every detail by other corroborative and circumstantial evidence.