Summary: Sentence upheld ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Qatl-e-Amd—Discretion in sentencing—Normal vs. alternate punishment—Appellant convicted for murdering his wife by firearm—Trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment considering mitigating factors, including his young age, first-offender status, and unproven motive—High Court enhanced sentence to death on the ground that trial court did not comply with S. 367(5), Cr.P.C.—Held, S. 302(b), P.P.C. provides two alternate punishments: death or life imprisonment as tazir, and the courts must exercise discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances—Appellate court may not interfere with trial court’s discretion where mitigating factors exist—Trial court had explicitly recorded reasons for not awarding death—High Court erred in treating death sentence as the normal punishment without appreciating the mitigating circumstances already judicially acknowledged— Cited Cases: • Ghulam Mohyuddin v. The State 2014 SCMR 1034 • Hassan v. The State PLD 2013 SC 793 • Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582 • Muhammad Aslam v. The State 2007 SCMR 1412 • Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 • Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan 2001 SCMR 988 • Khurram Malik v. The State PLD 2006 SC 354 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 367(5)—Punishment other than death in capital offences—Requirement to record reasons—Held, where sentence of life imprisonment is awarded instead of death in an offence punishable under S. 302(b), P.P.C., trial court must record specific reasons—Trial court in present case complied with this obligation by noting age, lack of prior record, and lack of proven motive—High Court misapplied S. 367(5) and erroneously assumed reasons were absent—Provision applies to trial courts only and not to appellate or revisional courts. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Mohyuddin v. The State 2014 SCMR 1034 • Haji Muhammad Ilahi v. Muhammad Altaf 2011 SCMR 513 • Asad Mehmood v. Akhlaq Ahmed 2010 SCMR 868 **(c) Criminal Trial—Sentence— ----Principle of proportionality—Mitigating circumstances— Held, in sentencing for qatl-e-amd under S. 302(b), P.P.C., courts must balance retributive, deterrent, and reformative goals—Multiple precedents hold that even a single mitigating factor may justify awarding life imprisonment instead of death—Factors such as unproven motive, young age, lack of prior criminal record, and questionable recovery of weapon were present in this case—Appellant’s conviction was upheld, but sentence of death was not warranted in light of mitigating factors. Cited Cases: • Amjad Shah v. The State PLD 2017 SC 152 • Nadeem alias Nanha v. The State 2010 SCMR 949 • Zafar Iqbal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1721 • Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Akhtar 2016 SCMR 2035 • Abdul Haque v. The State PLD 1996 SC 1 (d) Sindh Arms Act, 2013 ----S. 23(1)(a)—Conviction for unlawful possession of firearm—Sentence upheld—Recovery of firearm led by appellant was questioned due to simultaneous submission of spent bullets and weapon to Forensic Lab—Held, even if firearm recovery deemed doubtful, prosecution proved guilt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular and medical evidence—Conviction under Sindh Arms Act and corresponding sentence and fine maintained. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 544-A—Compensation to heirs of deceased—Amount of Rs. 200,000/- awarded to legal heirs by trial court—Held, compensation to remain intact and recoverable as arrears of land revenue—In case of default, appellant to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. (f) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 9—Right to life—Judicial discretion in awarding sentence—Held, life and liberty are constitutionally protected rights—Exercise of sentencing discretion must favor preservation of life where justified—Recognition of mitigating circumstances aligns with constitutional principles protecting individual rights. **(g) Criminal Appeal—Scope of interference with acquittal— ----Standard of review—High Court had acquitted co-accused after reappraisal of evidence for lack of incriminating material—Held, presumption of double innocence attaches to acquittal—Supreme Court declined to interfere, finding acquittal to be well-reasoned and not perverse. Cited Case: • Haji Muhammad Ilahi v. Muhammad Altaf 2011 SCMR 513 Disposition: Appeal partially allowed—Conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C. maintained—High Court’s enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death set aside—Life sentence awarded by trial court restored—Compensation under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. upheld—In case of default, appellant to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment—Conviction and sentence under S. 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act also upheld—All sentences to run concurrently—Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended to the appellant—Appeal against acquittal of co-accused dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 410, 544-A & 367: —Appeal against conviction—Capital punishment—Duty of trial court in murder trials—Requirement of detailed reasoning—Scope— Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death as Tazir, with Rs.500,000/- compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under S.544-A, Cr.P.C. The conviction was challenged under S.410, Cr.P.C. Held, that the trial court erred in merely reproducing prosecution evidence in its judgment without independently assessing the credibility of each witness or providing cogent legal reasoning for acceptance or rejection—In cases involving capital punishment, it is a mandatory legal requirement for trial courts to record findings on each piece of evidence with clarity, apply judicial mind, and confront the accused accordingly—Failure to do so constitutes a perfunctory exercise of jurisdiction and undermines the seriousness of capital sentencing. Cited Case: Muhammad Latif v. The State PLD 2008 SC 503. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302—Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 —Murder—Sentence of death—Convict arrested on the spot—Ocular account supported by medical and forensic evidence— Appellant was arrested red-handed at the scene of occurrence by PW-3 (ASI Traffic Incharge) immediately after he shot the deceased twice with a handgun in broad daylight—Two other independent eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) corroborated the ocular version and assigned specific role to the appellant—Medical evidence (Ex.PW-5/A) and forensic findings (FSL report and toxicology) were in complete harmony with the eyewitness account—Held, that prosecution evidence was confidence inspiring, consistent, and remained unshaken during cross-examination—Convict’s presence at the place of occurrence was admitted and never disputed—Appeal dismissed and sentence of death confirmed. ----Cited Cases: • Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 • Saeed and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 747 • Muhammad Akbar v. The State PLD 2004 SC 44 • Khan alias Khani v. The State 2006 SCMR 1744 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872), Art. 129—Evaluation of evidence—Failure to discredit ocular testimony— Three prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) consistently deposed against the appellant, narrating the entire occurrence with clarity and without contradiction—Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were not only direct but also mutually corroborative—PW-3, a public official, apprehended the accused at the scene with the crime weapon—Defence failed to raise any plausible contradiction or shake credibility of witnesses—Cross-examination was superficial and avoided material points—Held, courts are not bound to discard otherwise reliable ocular evidence merely due to non-production of additional independent witnesses, especially when incident occurs in a public setting with prompt FIR and apprehension of accused. ---Cited Case: Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 (d) Criminal Law—Motive—Absence or weakness of motive—Effect— Defence contended that motive regarding illicit relations was not proven—Held, that proof of motive is not a sine qua non for awarding death sentence—Where direct, reliable, and confidence-inspiring ocular evidence exists, absence or weakness of motive does not cast doubt on the prosecution case—In cases of broad daylight occurrence witnessed by multiple independent persons and accused caught on the spot, motive is immaterial. ---Cited Case: • Saeed and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 747 • Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 (e) Criminal Trial—Standard of proof—Eyewitnesses and corroboratory evidence— Ocular testimony of three witnesses fully corroborated by site plan, seizure memos, autopsy report, and FSL findings—Held, prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond every possibility—Where material evidence is consistent, reliable, and corroborated by documentary proof, conviction is sustainable—Minor omissions or technical lapses such as absence of a witness’s location on site plan are not fatal if oral testimony is credible. Appeal dismissed; Sentence of death confirmed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 367Judgment---Mandatory contents---Failure to address specific charges---Effect---Trial court’s judgment convicting appellant under Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), and 337-D, P.P.C., and acquitting co-accused under same FIR was set aside and case remanded due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements of S. 367, Cr.P.C.—Trial court failed to clarify whether accused was acquitted or convicted under S. 302, P.P.C., despite its inclusion in the charge, and omitted any reference to S. 34, P.P.C. (common intention) while convicting and acquitting different accused persons—Judgment lacking specification of charges, points for determination, findings, and reasons held to be legally unsustainable.Irfan v. Muhammad Yousaf 2016 SCMR 1190 and Bashir Ahmed v. The State 2022 SCMR 1187 relied upon.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 337-D & 34Criminal trial---Common intention---Failure to determine liability under S. 34, P.P.C.---Remand---Despite framing of charges including S. 302/34, P.P.C., trial court did not assign any finding regarding the applicability of S. 34, P.P.C. while convicting one accused and acquitting others—Held, it was the bounden duty of the trial court to clearly address common intention where multiple accused were charged—Lack of findings under S. 34, P.P.C., especially where conviction or acquittal hinges on collective criminal liability, rendered the judgment deficient—Case remanded for rewriting judgment in accordance with law, requiring the court to decide on each head of charge including individual and collective liability.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 342, 340(2), 367 & Remand JurisdictionAppeal---Remand for proper adjudication---Incomplete judgment---Scope---Conviction challenged due to deficient judgment—Trial court omitted findings under key charges and failed to provide reasons for conviction and acquittal—High Court remanded case to trial court with direction to rewrite judgment after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties—Remand ordered to ensure compliance with fair trial principles under procedural law and constitutional safeguards—Directions issued for expeditious completion of process within three weeks.(d) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 10-ARight to fair trial---Incomplete and ambiguous trial court judgment---Violation---Failure to address all charges, assign proper reasoning, and determine individual vs. joint liability of accused was found to violate the accused’s constitutional right to fair trial and due process as guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution—Remand necessary to uphold rule of law and ensure lawful and reasoned adjudication of criminal liability.-----Disposition: Judgment of Trial Court Set Aside---Case Remanded for Rewriting of Judgment---Connected Criminal Appeal and Revision Declared Infructuous and Dismissed.

Summary: (a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: ---- S. 12 – Sodomy – Standard of proof – Medical and forensic evidence – Acquittal Accused was charged under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377, P.P.C., for allegedly committing sodomy with the complainant’s son—Medical examination conducted on the same day found no physical injuries, anal trauma, or forensic evidence indicating commission of the offense—Chemical examiner’s report was negative for semen stains on swabs and clothing—Held, prosecution failed to provide independent or corroborative evidence apart from the solitary statement of the alleged victim, which was not supported by medical findings—In cases of sodomy, unimpeachable evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Trial court’s acquittal was justified—Appeal dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- S. 367 – Judgment writing – Points for determination – Legal requirements Trial court’s judgment did not mention specific points for determination, instead relying on general discussion of evidence—Held, under section 367, Cr.P.C., a judgment must explicitly state the legal issues involved, the decision on each issue, and the reasoning behind the decision—Failure to follow this structure results in judgments lacking clarity and legal coherence—Court noted that this violation was common in trial courts under Lahore and Peshawar High Court jurisdictions and directed higher courts to ensure compliance with proper judgment writing standards in future cases—However, case not remanded, as it would result in excessive procedural delays. (c) Criminal Law: ---- Acquittal – Presumption of innocence – Standard for appellate interference Once an accused is acquitted by the trial court, a double presumption of innocence is attached—Superior courts do not interfere unless there are strong reasons to overturn the acquittal—Where two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail—Held, in the absence of compelling evidence, the trial court’s finding of acquittal must stand—Appeal dismissed. (d) Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Acquittal of respondent upheld—Trial courts directed to adhere to section 367, Cr.P.C. in future judgments.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— ----S. 367---Judgment---Mandatory requirements---Trial Court must formulate points for determination, decide upon them, and provide reasons for its decision---Trial Court convicted the accused without properly evaluating prosecution evidence and merely highlighted weaknesses in the defence evidence---Held, such an approach was a glaring violation of the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. and fundamental principles of criminal justice---Presumption of innocence of an accused cannot be displaced merely due to weaknesses in defence evidence---A judgment must systematically evaluate prosecution evidence first to determine whether it establishes the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, before considering the defence evidence. (b) Burden of Proof in Criminal Trials— ----Onus to prove all ingredients of the charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused---Even if the defence plea appears weak or sham, the prosecution is not absolved of its duty to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt---Trial Court's approach of convicting the accused based on defects in defence evidence was erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law---Conviction cannot be based merely on the presumption of guilt or lack of a strong defence. (c) Administration of Justice— ----Failure to formulate points for determination in the judgment renders it defective---Use of the word "shall" in S. 367, Cr.P.C. indicates that compliance with its provisions is mandatory---A valid judgment must contain (i) a statement of facts, (ii) points for determination, (iii) decisions on those points, and (iv) reasons for such decisions---Omission to include these elements is fatal to a judgment and warrants its setting aside---Reliance placed on: • Rob Nawaz and another v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 858) • Mst. Shamshad v. The State (1998 SCMR 854) • Safdar Ali v. The Crown (PLD 1953 FC 93) • Hakim Ali and another v. The State (1971 SCMR 432) • Nadeem-ul-Haq Khan and another v. The State (1985 SCMR 510) • Abdur Rashid Munshi v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 498) • Ashiq Hussain and another v. The State (2003 SCMR 698) (d) Disposition— ----Federal Shariat Court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case for re-writing of judgment in accordance with law, directing the Trial Judge to comply with the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. within one month. Appeal allowed.