Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 295-C—Blasphemy—Mens rea—Mental disorder—Benefit of doubt—Held, conviction under S. 295-C being penal and capital requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both actus reus and mens rea—Medical Board (constituted per Supreme Court directions) diagnosed the appellant with Bipolar Affective Disorder, with contemporaneous symptoms of hypomania, grandiose/paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations; the contents of the impugned letters themselves reflected delusional grandeur and flight of ideas—Medical opinion created a serious doubt regarding the existence of criminal intent at the relevant time; such doubt must go to the accused—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Criminal law—Mental illness & criminal responsibility ----Safia Bano’s case applied—Constitution of Medical Board—Diagnosis and retrospective assessment—Where an accredited Board opined that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused likely acted under delusional beliefs/hallucinations consistent with Bipolar Affective Disorder, the presumption of sanity is rebutted sufficiently to raise reasonable doubt as to mens rea—Benefit of doubt extended; capital conviction cannot stand. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 243 & 342—Plea of guilty/statement of accused—Prosecution’s burden—Even where an accused pleads guilty or admits authorship of a document, the prosecution’s duty to prove all ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt persists—Failure to secure timely psychiatric evaluation; complainant SHO and investigating officer did not testify; proof that letters were communicated to copied recipients lacking—Prosecution shortcomings reinforced the doubt already raised by medical evidence. (d) Religious freedom / Evidentiary context ----Propagating own faith—Limits—Council of Islamic Ideology (interim report) noted that all faiths may be professed/practised/propagated subject to law and without encroaching others’ beliefs—On the facts, the letters were suffused with delusional assertions (e.g., claims to kingship of Israel, prophetic self-identification), corroborating the medical finding of disorder and undermining culpable intent rather than proving deliberate transgression. (e) Prisoners—Health care ----Treatment continuity—Appellant (over 74 years; incarcerated ~23 years, mostly on death row) had shown improvement on medication; Executive Director, Punjab Institute of Mental Health, directed to ensure treatment is not discontinued. Held: Medical Board’s diagnosis and the letters’ content created reasonable doubt as to mens rea for S. 295-C; prosecution otherwise failed to dispel doubt. Benefit of doubt extended; convictions of the Trial Court (18.07.2002) and High Court (30.06.2014) set aside. Appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; psychiatric treatment to continue. Cited Cases: • Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab & others, PLD 2021 SC 488. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and released, treatment to continue.

Summary: Acquittal ---- a) Criminal Law (AJ&K Penal Code) ----Ss. 302(b) & 34—Double murder—Conviction on circumstantial evidence—Standard and links in chain—Motive—Pointation-led recoveries.— Occurrence was admittedly unseen; prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence (recoveries, site plan, post-mortem, call-data, and related circumstances)—Held, to justify inference of guilt on circumstantial evidence, each link must be proved, forming a continuous chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence—On arrest, the convict disclosed the place where the dead bodies had been thrown; dead bodies were recovered on his pointation—This discovery fact, read with other proven circumstances, furnished a complete chain connecting the convict to the crime—Mere failure of the trial court to accept some pre-murder narrative (rented house aspect) did not demolish the overall prosecution case—Conviction maintained under S. 302(b), AJ&K Penal Code; S. 34 not attracted against co-accused absent proof of common intention and overt act. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 40—Information received from accused in police custody—Scope—Admissibility confined to “fact discovered”.— So much of the information given by an accused in police custody as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered may be proved—Dead bodies were recovered on the convict’s pointation; the “discovery” aspect was admissible under Art. 40 and could be relied upon—However, disclosure by co-accused (Safina) while in police custody was not treated as a confession against her per Art. 39 and yielded no independent incriminating recovery; she was rightly extended benefit of doubt. (c) Criminal Trial—Witness Credibility ----Related witnesses—Enmity test—Corroboration—Minor discrepancies.— Mere relationship with the deceased is not a ground to discard testimony unless inimical motive for false implication is shown—No such inimicality established—Minor discrepancies not going to the root of the case are to be ignored; accused cannot claim premium for insignificant inconsistencies. (d) Medical Evidence ----Post-mortem—Cause of death not ascertained due to decomposition—Effect.— Doctor could not opine cause of death owing to advanced decomposition and no material was available for chemical/forensic analysis—Held, medical inconclusiveness is not fatal where other reliable circumstances and discovery on pointation establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. (e) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 423—Appeals—Enhancement of sentence—Not permissible.— In an appeal, the Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence awarded by the trial court (prohibition under S. 423); enhancement lies, if at all, in revision under S. 439, Cr.P.C—Complainant/legal heirs’ appeal for enhancement from life imprisonment to death held not maintainable. (f) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 439—Revision—Scope contrasted with appeal.— High Court’s revisional powers include enhancement of sentence; by contrast, appeal cannot be used to enhance sentence—Proper remedy for enhancement is revision, not appeal. (g) Criminal Law (AJ&K Penal Code) ----S. 34—Common intention—Mere presence/relationship with principal accused—Insufficiency.— To attract vicarious liability under S. 34, participation in furtherance of common intention must be shown—Mere companionship, relationship (as spouse), or presence is insufficient absent proof of overt act or other strong circumstances manifesting shared design—Acquittal of co-accused (Safina) upheld. (h) Criminal Jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt—Acquittal—Double presumption of innocence—Interference threshold.— After acquittal, an accused enjoys double presumption of innocence; interference is warranted only if the order is perverse, capricious, or against settled norms of justice—Trial court’s acquittal of co-accused found well-reasoned; no misreading/non-reading shown; no interference called for. Disposition: Both appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentence of Ahsan-ullah under S. 302(b), AJ&K Penal Code (two counts of life imprisonment with S. 382-B benefit and compensation under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C) maintained. Complainant/legal heirs’ appeal for enhancement held not maintainable under S. 423, Cr.P.C. Acquittal of Mst. Safina affirmed; S. 34 not attracted. Cited Cases: • 2014 SCR 1441 (circumstantial evidence—missing link fatal) • 2017 SCR 428 (benefit of doubt; appellate interference with acquittal—high threshold) • 2016 SCR 1176 (circumstantial evidence—unbroken chain) • 2016 SCR 373 (necessary party; maintainability context) • 2014 SCR 1585 (Art. 40 QSO—disclosure leading to recovery; chain principle) • PLD 2003 SC 704 (confessional statements—criteria/admissibility) • 2005 SD 1116 (sentencing reasons; enhancement to death) • 2009 SCMR 135 (death sentence on circumstantial evidence when chain complete) • 2015 P.Cr.L.J 1685 (Isl.) (burden of proof; exceptions) • PLJ 2005 Sh.C (AJ&K) 36 (onus; exceptions) • PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 82 (confession before Magistrate; recovery witness; effect of irregular investigation) • 2015 SCR 1042; 2009 SCR 71 (related witnesses—enmity test) • 2022 SCMR 2024 (minor discrepancies immaterial) • 2014 SCR 351; 2005 SCR 1 (benefit of slightest doubt; double presumption of innocence)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 242, 243, 265-C & 265-E---Guilty plea---Procedure---Safeguards---Duty of trial court---Accused convicted for offences under Ss. 11F(2) and 11N of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 based on his plea of guilty---Appellate Court found that trial court failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under Cr.P.C. including supply of documents, proper framing and explanation of charge, assessment of voluntariness, and satisfaction of judicial conscience---Accused was not given the required 7-day period post-supply of documents as per S. 265-C Cr.P.C., nor was the charge explained in his native language---Held, recording of plea must be preceded by judicial inquiry to ensure voluntariness and awareness of consequences, especially in terrorism cases---Failure to do so amounts to denial of fair trial and renders conviction unsustainable. Cited cases: • Shera v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 365 • Younas Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1684 • Liaqat Ali v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2434 • Nusrat Mai v. The State 1997 MLD 2869 (b) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 10A---Right to fair trial---Scope---Guilty plea in serious criminal cases---Constitutional right to due process---Accused was convicted without proper legal assistance, despite expressing financial inability to hire counsel---No legal aid provided by trial court as required under S. 19(8) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction based solely on plea recorded while accused remained in police custody without independent legal consultation---Held, violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution---Court must ensure that waiver of fair trial rights is informed, voluntary, and not obtained under duress---Impugned conviction set aside and case remanded. Cited cases: • Boshi Ahmad v. Additional District Judge, Hafizabad PLD 2024 SC 67 • University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997): ----Ss. 11F(2), 11N & 19(8)---Membership of proscribed organization---Collection of funds---Right to counsel---Accused pleaded guilty to collecting donations for proscribed organization "Jaish-e-Muhammad"---No evidence on record confirming voluntary nature of plea---Trial court failed to provide court-appointed counsel despite request and mandatory provision under S. 19(8) of ATA---Held, convictions under terrorism laws require heightened procedural safeguards and strict judicial scrutiny---Plea not voluntarily made nor supported by corroborative evidence---Conviction set aside, case remanded. (d) Criminal trial: ----Plea of guilty---Voluntariness---Judicial obligation to verify voluntariness---Recording of plea without proper inquiry into reasons or corroborative facts---Accused cited poverty and mental distress as reasons for pleading guilty---Appellate Court held such plea could not substitute judicial satisfaction---Guilty plea must reflect clear admission of essential elements of offence and be corroborated by facts on record---Held, appellate intervention warranted where conviction is obtained in violation of due process safeguards. Cited case: • Raza v. The State PLD 2020 SC 523 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; case remanded to ATC for trial in accordance with law. ''Criminal Appeal. Held: A magistrate or Session Judge (including Anti-Terrorism court) must ensure that an accused person pleading guilty fully understands the nature of the charge and its consequences. While the court seized of the matter may in its discretion convict the accused upon a guilty plea it should not ordinarily record such a conviction solely on the basis of lea of guilty in cases involving heinous offences such as murder or terrorism. When recording a conviction based on a guilty plea te court must ensure that the preconditions for recording a confession (sections 164 and 364 Cr.P.C) regarding the voluntary nature of the plea are satisfied. (Conviction set aside case remanded).''

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 173 & 561-A – Counter FIRs – Investigation must consider both versions – No automatic exclusion of subsequent FIR – Trial Court justified in entertaining both cases Petitioners sought quashment of trial proceedings, arguing that once an FIR (No. 55 of 2003) resulted in a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., it was unlawful for the prosecution to file another challan based on FIR No. 56 of 2003. Held, where counter cases arise from the same incident, each party presents its own version, blaming the other as the aggressor. Police must investigate both cases independently, and if both disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must file separate reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C.. A subsequent report does not become redundant merely because an earlier one exists; instead, the Trial Court is required to consider both versions before reaching a conclusion. If, upon investigation, one version is found to be false, proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. for false reporting can be initiated. The trial of both cases simultaneously is legally justified. ----Cited Cases: PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 (The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob) PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65 (Ibrar Hussain Shah v. The State) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 242, 243 & 244 – Framing of charge – Consideration of all prosecution material – Charge-sheet not confined to FIR and police report Petitioners objected that the Trial Court framed charges incorporating facts not found in the FIR or report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., particularly allegations that they were called to the scene by another individual and that the dispute related to a pathway. Held, while an FIR and police report are primary documents, the Trial Court is required under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C., to consider all prosecution evidence, including witness statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., site plans, and recovery memos when framing charges. Since statements of some witnesses supported the facts included in the charge-sheet, the charge was lawfully framed. Mere incorporation of evidentiary details in a charge does not prejudice the accused, as they still retain the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present a defense. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Defective charge – Impact on trial – Conviction cannot be sustained on defective framing of charge, but charge alone does not vitiate trial Petitioners relied on PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 and PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65, arguing that the charge was defective as it included facts not directly supported by the FIR. Held, these precedents were not applicable, as the petitioners had not been convicted but merely charged. A charge under S. 242, Cr.P.C., serves to inform the accused of allegations, enabling them to prepare a defense. Any defect in the charge does not vitiate the trial unless it results in wrongful conviction or prejudices the accused’s defense. Since the petitioners had denied the charges, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove them, and the accused retained full rights to challenge the evidence. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed; trial proceedings to continue.