Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984— ----Art. 46—Dying declaration—Admissibility—Evidentiary value—Standard of scrutiny— Prosecution case for murder rested primarily upon dying declaration of deceased recorded soon after occurrence in hospital and ocular account of eyewitness—Held, dying declaration is admissible under Art.46, Qanun-e-Shahadat, without pre-condition of imminent expectation of death—Such statement carries great evidentiary value on principle that a person at brink of death is presumed not to lie, yet it must be subjected to close scrutiny as maker is not available for cross-examination—In present case, dying declaration was recorded within about thirty-five minutes of occurrence and was found consistent on material particulars with ocular account—Medical evidence established deceased was conscious, oriented and fit to make statement at relevant time—Non-attestation of dying declaration by medical officer, in circumstances where doctor had examined injured and found him fit, did not render declaration unreliable—Dying declaration and corroborating ocular/medical evidence were sufficient to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)— ----S. 302(b)—Murder—Proof—Ocular account and medical corroboration— Accused was charged with murder by firearm; deceased sustained multiple firearm injuries and later succumbed—Held, prosecution evidence, comprising prompt dying declaration, corroborative eyewitness testimony, medical evidence of firearm injuries, and recovery of blood-stained earth and crime empty from place of occurrence, established commission of offence beyond shadow of doubt—No material contradiction or legal infirmity was shown to discredit prosecution version—Conviction under S.302(b) was upheld. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— ----Ss. 204 & 87—Abscondence—Evidentiary significance— Accused remained fugitive for about eight years after occurrence and was arrested much later; proceedings under Ss.204 and 87, Cr.PC were initiated and completed—Held, unexplained abscondence and disappearance immediately after occurrence, particularly when deceased was co-villager and accused could reasonably apprehend accusation, constituted strong incriminating circumstance pointing towards guilt, though conviction still rested on substantive prosecution evidence. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)— ----S. 302—Sentence—Death penalty and life imprisonment—Mitigating circumstance—Motive not proved— Trial Court awarded death sentence; High Court maintained conviction but converted sentence to life imprisonment—Held, though death is normal penalty for murder, Court retains discretion to award life imprisonment where extenuating circumstances exist—Failure of prosecution to prove alleged motive constituted mitigating circumstance justifying conversion of death sentence into life imprisonment—High Court’s exercise of sentencing discretion warranted no interference. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— ----S. 544-A—Compensation—Maintenance— Accused was directed to pay compensation to legal heirs of deceased with default sentence—High Court maintained compensation and default sentence and extended benefit of S.382-B, Cr.PC—Held, no ground was made out to interfere with compensation and ancillary directions. Disposition: Criminal Petition for leave to appeal seeking restoration of death sentence (Crl.P.L.A. No.99-P/2019) was dismissed by majority (two to one, with Musarrat Hilali, J. dissenting); Jail Petition No.614/2019 filed by convicted accused was dismissed; leave to appeal was declined and judgment of High Court maintaining conviction under S.302(b) PPC while converting death sentence to life imprisonment (with compensation maintained and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.PC extended) was upheld.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –– Ss. 4(k), 154, 156(3), 157, 173, 190, 200–204, 265-K, 342 –– Cognizable offence –– Entry in daily diary instead of FIR –– Scope and effect of Magistrate’s power under S.156(3) –– Legality of arrest prior to registration of FIR. Information given by complainant regarding disappearance and suspected abduction of two young men clearly disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, yet the officer incharge did not register an FIR under S.154 Cr.P.C. and only made an entry in the daily diary while seeking “inquiry” under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. –– Held, “such an investigation” in S.156(3) refers to investigation under S.156(1) which presupposes registration of a case under S.154 –– S.156(3) cannot be invoked to order an “inquiry” and Magistrate has no authority to direct such inquiry; to read such power into S.156(3) would amount to adding words not intended by the legislature –– The duty to register and investigate cognizable offences rests exclusively with the officer incharge of the police station; entry in the roznamcha/daily diary does not convert information into a cognizable case nor authorize investigation under Chapter XIV –– An arrest prior to registration of FIR, save in exceptional circumstances expressly covered by Ss.54, 55, 57 or 151 Cr.P.C., is illegal and without lawful authority –– In the present case, the appellants were arrested on the basis of a diary entry before registration of the crime report; such arrest was held illegal and the purported “inquiry” under S.156(3) without an FIR was without lawful sanction, having direct bearing on the reliability of subsequent proceedings including judicial confession. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 –– Arts. 38 & 40 –– Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –– Ss. 164, 364 –– Judicial confession –– Requirements of voluntariness and safeguards –– Delay and custody in police control –– Evidentiary value. Under Art.38 of the Order of 1984, confession made to or in presence of a police officer is inadmissible; confession in custody is admissible only if recorded by a Magistrate under S.164 Cr.P.C. or where it leads to discovery of a fact within Art.40 –– S.364 Cr.P.C. and Ch.13 of High Court Rules & Orders impose mandatory safeguards: Magistrate must explain to accused that he is not bound to confess, that the confession may be used against him, and must not record the statement unless he has “reasons to believe” it is voluntary, which requires objective satisfaction based on his own observations –– Judicial confession may form basis of conviction if true, voluntary and corroborated, but delay in recording, especially when accused remains in police influence, casts serious doubt on voluntariness and calls for heightened scrutiny –– In the present case, appellants were illegally arrested on 17.02.2016 and their judicial confessions recorded on 23.02.2016, six days later; there were material contradictions between the Magistrate and investigating officer regarding custody and handing over of the accused after recording of confession –– Confessions were not corroborated by independent evidence and even conflicted with prosecution’s own narrative –– Held, in such circumstances, the alleged judicial confessions were surrounded by serious doubts regarding voluntariness and safety, and could not be relied upon as a basis for conviction. (c) Criminal trial –– Evidence –– Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report –– Chain of custody –– Delay in dispatch –– Recovery of incriminating articles –– Effect. Prosecution relied on recovery at instance of appellant of a Kalashnikov rifle, blood-stained axe, churri (knife), a portion of blood-stained chitae (mat) and blood-stained stones, as well as positive FSL reports –– Evidence showed that alleged recoveries were made earlier but ballistic and serological exhibits were dispatched to FSL almost four weeks after the occurrence, impairing sanctity of chain of custody –– Firearm and spent crime-empties were sent together, further compromising evidentiary integrity –– Medical evidence indicated injuries that would cause profuse bleeding, yet there was no evidence of extensive blood at the alleged crime scene, nor was it the prosecution case that blood had been washed to remove traces –– Investigating officer did not corroborate complainant’s assertion that personal effects of the deceased were recovered during a joint police/Chitral Scouts raid on accused’s house –– Held, in view of unexplained delays, contradictions, scant physical traces in a case involving decapitation and dismemberment, and compromised chain of custody, reliance on FSL reports and alleged recoveries to sustain a capital conviction was unsafe. (d) Criminal trial –– Circumstantial evidence –– Standard of proof –– Absence of “last seen” and direct ocular account –– Benefit of doubt. Entire case rested on circumstantial evidence: there was no direct ocular testimony placing the appellants in the company or proximity of the deceased at the relevant time, nor any credible “last seen” evidence beyond generalized statements regarding crossing of a bridge –– Human remains in two sacks were not recovered at the instance of the appellants –– Crucial evidence regarding movement of the victims across a bridge controlled by Chitral Scouts, with a maintained register and temporary retention of identity cards, was not properly collected –– Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material particulars, including search and recovery –– In such circumstances of illegal arrest, doubtful confessional statements, compromised recoveries, weak forensic support and incomplete investigation, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt –– Held, appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt, capital convictions under Ss.302(b) and 34 PPC, as well as convictions under Ss.201 and 15(AA) PPC, could not be sustained; acquittal was warranted. (e) Criminal justice system –– Investigation and prosecution –– Judicial censure. The case was described by the Supreme Court as a classic illustration of the abysmal state of the criminal justice system, reflecting lack of integrity, competence and professionalism in investigation and prosecution, and inability of investigation officers to discharge statutory duties –– Failure to promptly register FIR, resort to an impermissible “inquiry” under S.156(3) Cr.P.C., illegal arrest, poor collection and preservation of physical and forensic evidence, and contradictions in prosecution case collectively undermined the search for truth and risked miscarriage of justice in a double-murder case involving decapitation and dismemberment of two young men –– Court reiterated that Cr.P.C. structure, including judicial supervision of police powers, exists to protect both accused and victims from abuse of coercive authority, and disregard of these safeguards vitiates the worth of resulting evidence. (f) Result. Criminal Petition No.1674 of 2021 was converted into appeal and allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by trial court on 08.01.2020 and upheld by High Court on 09.06.2021 were set aside and appellants, Said-ur-Rehman and Noor Rehmat, were acquitted by extending benefit of doubt and ordered to be released if not required in any other case –– Criminal Petitions Nos.135-P and 136-P of 2021 filed by complainant against acquittal of co-accused were dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204---Direct complaint---Scrutiny of allegations before issuance of process---Safeguards against frivolous and vexatious complaints---Petitioner filed a direct complaint under S. 200 Cr.P.C. against 56 police officials and private persons, alleging unlawful trespass, abduction, and theft---Trial court took cognizance and issued bailable warrants but failed to scrutinize the allegations effectively---High Court set aside the order, holding that the complaint was a retaliatory measure against an earlier FIR lodged against the petitioner---Held, trial courts must carefully evaluate complaints under Ss. 202 & 203 Cr.P.C. to prevent harassment, victimization, and misuse of legal process---A complaint should not be entertained where allegations lack prima facie evidence or appear to be motivated by mala fide intent. Cited Cases: • Abdul Muktadar v. District & Sessions Judge, Jhang, 2010 SCMR 194 • Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz, 2000 SCMR 1904 • Zafar v. Umer Hayat, 2010 SCMR 1816 (b) Malafide Intent & Retaliatory Litigation ----Abuse of legal process---Filing of direct complaint as a counterblast to prior criminal proceedings---FIR No. 03/2022 had been registered against the petitioner under Ss. 395, 353, 337-H(ii), 342 PPC for allegedly attacking police officers and robbing government ammunition---Held, the direct complaint was a deliberate retaliatory measure filed after the said FIR, with the intent to counteract legal action against the petitioner---Trial courts must be vigilant against such abuse of process to ensure that legal mechanisms are not misused for personal vendettas. (c) Judicial Inquiry & Evidentiary Deficiencies ----Preliminary inquiry under S. 202 Cr.P.C.---Failure of complainant to substantiate allegations---Petitioner’s complaint alleged theft of cash, furniture, and vehicles, but he failed to produce receipts or ownership documents---Two witnesses presented during the judicial inquiry contradicted the petitioner’s version, failing to identify the accused or substantiate claims of abduction---Held, a complaint must stand on its own merits and be supported by independent evidence---Trial courts must consider judicial inquiry reports before issuing process under S. 204 Cr.P.C. to prevent frivolous litigation. (d) Scope of Trial Court's Discretion ----Duty of trial courts to scrutinize complaints before issuing process---Legal requirement to filter out frivolous complaints---Held, the trial court failed to appreciate the judicial inquiry report, which found no prima facie case against the accused---A complaint must not be entertained unless there is substantive material evidence to support the allegations---High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to prevent unwarranted legal action. ----- Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. Stay application (Cr.M.A.No.124-K/2022) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----S. 204---- Private complaint---Dismissal at preliminary stage---Consideration of extraneous facts---Scope---Petitioner/complainant filed private complaint alleging occurrence dated 24-04-2023, supported by her statement, statement of injured witness, statement of another witness, medico-legal examination certificate, post-mortem report, and application to SHO for registration of FIR---Trial Court dismissed complaint on ground that FIR No. 756/23 under Ss. 302, 324 & 34 PPC was already registered against complainant’s husband, and that complaint was an attempt to create a counter-case---Trial Court relied on facts from connected proceedings and presence of complainant in other case without such facts being brought on record in due course of law---Held, Court could not consider facts of connected cases not forming part of record---Allowing respondent No. 3 to contest complaint at preliminary stage without formal summoning also irregular---At preliminary stage, only evidence produced in complaint proceedings could be considered---Statements of witnesses and documentary evidence prima facie disclosed sufficient grounds for issuance of process---Trial Court had travelled beyond jurisdiction; dismissal order not sustainable. (b) Issuance of process Under S. 204 Cr.P.C., once complaint is supported by statements of witnesses and corroborative documents disclosing prima facie offence, Court is bound to issue process against proposed accused and proceed with trial; consideration of merits of defence or unrelated facts is beyond scope at this stage. Disposition: Criminal Revision allowed---Impugned order set aside---Trial Court directed to issue process against respondents No. 2 to 6 and proceed with trial in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 200, 202, 203, 204; Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 420, 468, 471, 489-F Issuance of process in private complaint --- Mandatory judicial scrutiny --- Complaint filed without disclosing mens rea or actus reus against co-accused --- No specific allegation or documentary evidence against petitioners who were not privy to cheque transaction --- Magistrate issued process without evaluating sufficiency or credibility of material --- Held, trial court is obligated to examine all material evidence before summoning any person under S.204 Cr.P.C. --- Summoning order passed without fulfilling essential requirements is unlawful and liable to be set aside. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Hyder v. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption 2020 MLD 634 • Muhammad Rajar v. The State PLD 2025 SC 40 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 22-A, 22-B; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ---- Art. 199 False implication and counterblast litigation --- Earlier attempt by complainant to initiate proceedings under Ss. 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C. dismissed for lack of cognizable offence --- FIRs earlier registered against petitioner (accused) were cancelled after investigation --- High Court had also directed that version of respondent be examined per PLD 2018 SC 595 (Sughran Bibi case) --- Complaint subsequently filed as a counterblast to criminal case already registered against respondent for cheque tampering --- Held, filing of private complaint in these circumstances is an abuse of process intended to harass petitioners. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) ---- Art. 85; Forensic Evidence Cheque forgery and authorship of signature --- Forensic report of PFSA explicitly negated authorship of petitioner Afshan Hussain on disputed cheque --- PFSA opinion concluded that questioned signature was not written by petitioner --- Held, in presence of authoritative expert report exonerating petitioner, continuation of proceedings based on same instrument is unjustified and mala fide. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 203 Dismissal of complaint for lack of prima facie case --- Complaint must establish essential ingredients of offence to warrant process --- No oral or documentary evidence available to connect petitioners with alleged offences --- Impugned orders of Magistrate and revisional court held to be perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders dated 07.12.2023 (Magistrate Section 30, Lahore Cantt) and 03.04.2024 (Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore) set aside. Private complaint quashed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204—Private complaint—Issuance of process—Scope and judicial duty—Held, before summoning accused, trial court must satisfy itself through examination of complaint and supporting material that prima facie case exists against the accused based on both actus reus and mens rea—Summoning cannot be mechanical or arbitrary—In present case, learned trial court summoned petitioners without cogent material—Held, such summoning amounted to abuse of process and was legally unsustainable—Reliance placed on Ghulam Hyder v. Special Judge Anti-Corruption (P) Hyderabad (2020 MLD 634) and Muhammad Rajar v. The State (PLD 2025 SC 40). (b) Criminal trial—False implication—Mala fide intent—Scope ----Held, that respondent No.2 originally lodged FIR against unknown assailants, but was later implicated as accused following recovery of weapon and incriminating articles—Post bail, she instituted private complaint against petitioners including real brothers and cousin of the deceased who were eyewitnesses in the challan case, without assigning any specific overt act—Court found this to be a mala fide attempt to shift liability and retaliate against prosecution witnesses—Held, such complaint was vexatious, an abuse of legal process, and intended to harass and deter witnesses. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 435 & 439—Revisional jurisdiction—Interference with summoning order—Scope—Held, where trial court exceeds legal bounds in summoning accused without satisfying preconditions of law, revisional court is fully empowered to set aside such order as being without lawful authority—Order summoning petitioners set aside and private complaint dismissed. Disposition: Revision petition allowed. Impugned order of summoning petitioners in private complaint quashed. Private complaint filed by respondent No.2 dismissed for being false, frivolous, and an abuse of process.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 202, 203 & 204---Issuance of process on a private complaint---Duty of the trial court---Scope---Held, while considering a private complaint, the trial court must scrutinize its contents, the nature of allegations, supporting material, and the likelihood of victimization or harassment to ensure that no innocent person is subjected to prolonged legal proceedings---Provisions of Ss. 202 to 204, Cr.P.C., provide safeguards against frivolous and vexatious complaints, and courts are duty-bound to reject complaints where no prima facie case is made out---Summoning of petitioners by trial court without proper scrutiny of the complaint was unjustified and amounted to mechanical application of law---Judgment of High Court affirming such issuance of summons was also held to be erroneous---Appeal allowed, and complaint dismissed. Cited Cases: Abdul Wahab Khan v. The State (2000 SCMR 1904) Muhammad Salim v. The State (2001 SCMR 1738) G.M. Sikdar v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 158) Messrs Airport Services v. The State (1998 SCMR 2268) Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. The State (PLD 1964 SC 829) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 200 & 202---Delay in filing a private complaint---Evidentiary value---Scope---Held, though no specific limitation period is prescribed for filing a criminal complaint, an unexplained and prolonged delay in filing such a complaint diminishes its credibility, particularly when it is based on oral evidence---In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 15-06-2008, while the counter-complaint was filed after more than seven months, without any justifiable explanation---Courts must exercise caution in entertaining delayed complaints, as they raise doubts about their authenticity and may be an attempt to counteract the original prosecution---Complaint dismissed accordingly. Cited Cases: Muhammad Saleem v. The State (1994 SCMR 2213) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 204---Summoning of accused persons---Application of judicial mind---Scope---Held, issuance of summons is not a mechanical process; courts are required to apply judicial mind to ensure that no innocent person suffers through unwarranted criminal prosecution---In the present case, trial court issued summons without due scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, and High Court mechanically upheld the order without independent application of mind---Failure of courts to exercise due diligence in issuing summons amounts to a violation of due process and fundamental rights of accused persons---Summoning order and High Court judgment set aside. Cited Cases: Noor Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 9) (d) Administration of Justice – ----Judicial review of lower court decisions---Duty of superior courts---Scope---Held, superior courts have a duty to ensure that subordinate courts decide cases after due application of mind and in accordance with established legal principles---Courts must not simply countersign the decisions of trial courts without conducting an independent review of the merits of the case---High Court failed in its duty by merely endorsing the trial court’s order without examining the legality and propriety of the summoning process---Judgment of High Court set aside. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Complaint filed by the respondent dismissed.