Summary: (a) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 353---Recording of evidence---Presence of accused---Fair opportunity of defence---General rule---Held, ordinarily all evidence in trial is to be recorded in presence of accused or his pleader; underlying purpose is to ensure fair opportunity of cross-examination and to prevent prejudice arising from absence. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 47---Previous testimony---Admissibility in subsequent proceedings---Conditions---Complainant Abdul Rehman deposed in earlier trial arising out of same incident---He was cross-examined by defence in that trial---Accused Riffat Hussain was absconding and did not face trial at that stage---Later, upon arrest and trial of absconding accused, complainant had died---Held, where witness is dead and testimony was recorded in earlier judicial proceeding relating to same occurrence, and defence had right and opportunity of cross-examination in earlier proceeding, such deposition is admissible and can be read in evidence in subsequent trial---Earlier deposition satisfied statutory conditions of Art.47 and could be relied upon along with later ocular testimony. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 512---Recording of evidence in absence of absconding accused---Use of such deposition after arrest---Principle---Held, law provides mechanism to preserve prosecution evidence where accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arrest---Upon arrest, such deposition may be used if deponent is dead/incapable/unavailable without unreasonable delay or expense---Absconding accused cannot claim advantage from own wrongful conduct; implied waiver of right to contemporaneous cross-examination during period of abscondence recognised. (d) Criminal jurisprudence ----Abscondence---Effect on procedural protections---Maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria”---Held, accused who deliberately evades process of law cannot later insist on strict procedural advantage founded on his own abscondence; technical objections regarding non-availability of direct cross-examination were not sustainable where statutory conditions for use of prior testimony were met. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 131---Admissibility---Court’s authority---Held, trial judge is empowered to determine admissibility; where substantive statutory requirements are fulfilled, minor technical irregularities regarding formal transposition under S.512 Cr.P.C. do not defeat admissibility or probative evaluation of earlier testimony. (f) Criminal trial ----Prompt FIR---Effect---FIR lodged within about one and a half hours---Held, promptness excluded deliberation and consultation and lent assurance to prosecution version and nomination of accused. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Murder---Ocular and medical corroboration---Accused specifically nominated---Consistent role attribution---Ocular account comprised of complainant’s earlier deposition and eyewitness Muhammad Ishaq’s later testimony---Both consistent with FIR and confidence inspiring---Held, ocular account was natural, straightforward and free from material contradictions or inherent improbabilities---Medical evidence supported nature, number and location of injuries and cause of death---Recovery of weapon and prolonged abscondence provided further corroboration when read with other evidence---Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction maintained. (h) Sentence ----Life imprisonment on two counts---Concurrency---High Court converted death sentence into life imprisonment on two counts---Supreme Court declined interference with conversion---Held, no ground made out to enhance sentence; discretion exercised by High Court neither arbitrary nor perverse---However, life sentences on two counts directed to run concurrently. Cited Cases: • Miran v. The State 2013 P Cr. L J 244 • Arbab Tasleem v. The State PLD 2010 SC 642 • Ahmad Ali v. Ebrar Khan etc. Cr.R No. 07-P/2021 • The State v. Ali Zaman 1981 PCr.LJ 194 • Pakistan International Freight Forwarders Association v. Province of Sindh 2017 PTD 1 Disposition: Crl.P.L.A.1431/2020 was dismissed; conviction and life imprisonment awarded to petitioner Riffat Hussain were maintained; life sentences on two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Crl.P.L.A.1487/2020 seeking enhancement was dismissed and leave was refused; no interference warranted with High Court’s conversion of death sentence into life imprisonment. (Short order dated 25.11.2025; reasons recorded in judgment).

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 512—Trial in absentia—Subsequent retrial—Effect— Appellant was initially convicted and sentenced to death in absentia under S. 512, Cr.P.C. upon his escape from judicial custody. After his re-arrest, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for retrial. The trial court again convicted and sentenced the appellant to death on five counts under S. 302(b), P.P.C., which was upheld by the High Court. Held, retrial following arrest and remand is lawful and does not attract double jeopardy under Art. 13 of the Constitution or S. 403, Cr.P.C. Retrial was consistent with due process and legal remedy. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)—Murder—Quantum of sentence—Rule of expectancy of life—Delay in execution—Mitigating factors—Concurrent sentence— Appellant remained incarcerated for over twenty-five years, most of which was served in the death cell, pending conclusion of legal remedies. Supreme Court held that while conviction was valid and supported by ocular and medical evidence, several mitigating factors warranted commutation of sentence: (i) prolonged incarceration in death cell without remission; (ii) appellant’s young age at the time of occurrence; (iii) lack of prior criminal record; (iv) role under influence of his father who had enmity with victims; (v) unreliable recovery of weapon; and (vi) unauthorized punishment due to degrading prison conditions. Death sentence on five counts converted to imprisonment for life on five counts to run concurrently. Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., extended. Cases cited: • Abdul Malik v. The State PLD 2006 SC 365 • Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582 • Hassan v. The State PLD 2013 SC 793 • Khalid Iqbal v. Mirza Khan PLD 2015 SC 50 • Ghulam Rasool v. The State 2025 SCMR 74 • Shahid Ali v. The State PLD 1970 SC 447 • Khadim Hussain v. Secretary HR PLD 2020 Islamabad 268 (c) Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 12(b), 13(a), 14 & 37(d)—Right to life and dignity—Double punishment—Cruel and inhumane treatment—Delay in appellate disposal— Held, prolonged delay of over 17 years in final disposal of death sentence appeal, not attributable to the appellant, subjected him to unauthorized punishment beyond the statutory scope of S. 302(b), P.P.C. Such incarceration in substandard prison conditions amounts to cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment, violating Arts. 9, 12(b), and 14 of the Constitution. Court emphasized constitutional responsibility of State organs to eliminate systemic delays and ensure humane treatment of prisoners. Judiciary, executive, and legislature must coordinate to reform and restore trust in the criminal justice system. (d) Administration of justice—Delay in appellate process—Impact on fairness and public confidence— Delay of six years in High Court and nearly a decade in Supreme Court to hear and decide appeal constituted failure of the criminal justice system. Held, such delays undermine public trust, especially when disproportionately affecting economically marginalized convicts. Supreme Court urged urgent structural reforms to ensure expeditious, transparent, and dignified delivery of justice. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld; death sentence on five counts commuted to life imprisonment on five counts to run concurrently; benefit under S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., granted.

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Eyewitness and Medical Evidence: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 334, 450, 148, 149 – Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S. 18 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 47 Appellant convicted for attempted murder, trespass, grievous hurt, and abduction for forced marriage—Prosecution established case through victim’s direct testimony, corroborated by medical evidence—Gunshot injuries leading to amputation of victim’s arm confirmed by medical report—Eyewitnesses remained consistent under cross-examination—Conviction upheld as evidence was unimpeachable and prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt—Reliance placed on Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831), Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (1996 SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396). (b) Admissibility of Transposed Witness Statements in Subsequent Trial: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 512 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 47 Statements of witnesses recorded in earlier trials of co-accused were transposed in appellant’s trial—Legality of transposition upheld as procedure followed Section 512, Cr.P.C., which allows for preservation of evidence in cases where accused absconds—Statements were admissible as prosecution met conditions of Article 47, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, ensuring cross-examination rights—Distinguished from Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo v. The State (2022 SCMR 1148), where transposed statements lacked proper judicial authorization—Reliance placed on Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman v. Yahya Bakhtiar (PLD 2010 SC 612), Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2018 SCMR 71). (c) Delay in Arrest and Recovery of Weapon – Impact on Case: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 450 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 Appellant remained absconding for 21 years—Kalashnikov recovered from his possession upon arrest—Recovery served as additional circumstantial evidence, supporting eyewitness and medical testimony—Delayed arrest did not weaken prosecution case as absconding indicated consciousness of guilt—Reliance placed on Rehmat Ali v. The State (1986 SCMR 446). (d) Procedural Irregularities in Medical Report – No Effect on Conviction: ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Minor clerical discrepancies in Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) did not affect credibility of medical evidence—Amputation of victim’s arm confirmed by hospital records—Courts held that such irregularities do not amount to failure of justice—Reliance placed on Faisal Mehmood v. The State (2010 SCMR 1025), Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2011 SCMR 460). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – No Benefit of Doubt Available: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Appellant’s conviction based on direct evidence of victim, supported by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence—No contradictions in prosecution’s case to warrant benefit of doubt—Absence of false implication or mala fide motives—Court emphasized that benefit of doubt applies only when substantial uncertainty exists—Reliance placed on Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Conviction and sentences upheld—No legal infirmity in trial court’s judgment—Appellant to serve imposed sentence. ----Cited Cases: Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831) Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (1996 SCMR 908) Naeem Akhtar v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman v. Yahya Bakhtiar (PLD 2010 SC 612) Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2018 SCMR 71) Rehmat Ali v. The State (1986 SCMR 446)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)----Qatl-e-Amd----Benefit of doubt----Appellant convicted for murder based on sole testimony of complainant, who later turned hostile----No independent ocular account produced to substantiate the prosecution’s case----Motive remained unproven as no documentary evidence of property dispute was presented----Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of murder. Cited Cases: Muhammad Suleman v. The State PLD 2007 SC 223 Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ v. The State 2021 SCMR 149 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Hostile witness----Evidentiary value----Complainant, being the sole eyewitness, resiled from her statement and was declared hostile----Prosecution failed to discredit her during cross-examination----A hostile witness cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration----Where a witness suppresses material facts, their testimony loses credibility. Cited Cases: Muhammad Suleman v. The State PLD 2007 SC 223 (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 512----Proclaimed offender----Trial of co-accused could not conclude due to absconding status----Prosecution failed to establish motive or present conclusive evidence against the appellant----In cases where key witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution must present additional corroborative evidence to sustain conviction. (d) Recovery of Weapon & Forensic Evidence ----S. 15-AA, Arms Ordinance----Recovery of weapon----Prosecution claimed to have recovered the weapon from the accused along with empties at the crime scene----However, the forensic report was received after significant delay, and safe custody of the weapon and empties was not established----Delays in sending ballistic evidence raise doubts regarding its credibility. Cited Cases: Muneer Malik v. The State 2022 SCMR 1494 (e) Administration of justice ----Prosecution’s duty to prove case beyond doubt----Failure to establish motive, unreliable eyewitness testimony, and delayed forensic reports resulted in serious doubts about the prosecution’s case----Where there is doubt, the benefit must go to the accused. ----- Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b); Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 340(2), 512; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Arts. 17, 70 & 71—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—FIR—Delay and manipulation—Acquittal—Allegation against appellant of causing firearm injury to deceased in a retaliatory attack—FIR purportedly lodged promptly on complainant’s statement at spot; however, record revealed unexplained delay of about one and a half hours despite police station being only two kilometres away—Medical records showed injured witnesses were in police custody before FIR registration—Inquest report showed deceased was identified by persons other than alleged eyewitnesses—Key police constable who carried complaint to police station not produced—Registers No. 1 & 2 (FIR Register and Station Diary) manipulated to give false impression of prompt FIR—Non-production of material witness in such circumstances held fatal—Prosecution’s version of promptness disbelieved—Guidance sought from Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Related witnesses—Independent witness hostile—Presence at crime scene doubtful—Out of three cited eyewitnesses, two were related to deceased and one independent (PW.12) turned hostile—Independent witness deposed that two unknown muffled persons committed offence and did not recognize accused in Court—Related witnesses’ credibility shaken: complainant (PW.10), aged 85/86 years, admitted deteriorated eyesight and hearing for preceding 5–6 years and unawareness of statement contents; another witness (PW.11) admitted appellant resided in Karachi at relevant time—Both related eyewitnesses not shown to have identified deceased in inquest report—Material contradiction creating doubt about their presence—Reliance placed on Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449). (c) Criminal trial ----Injured witnesses—Non-production—Effect—Two injured bystanders named in FIR neither joined investigation nor appeared at trial; prosecution admitted their refusal to depose—IO conceded none of them were summoned—Adverse inference drawn that their evidence would not have supported prosecution—Non-production of Rescue-1122 staff who allegedly transported injured/deceased further weakened case—Reliance placed on Qadir Bakhsh v. State [PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157 (DB)]. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Medical evidence—Scope—Deceased sustained seventeen injuries including nine firearm entry wounds—Appellant attributed only one injury—Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence—Medical evidence corroborative only and cannot by itself connect accused to crime—Reliance placed on Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103). (e) Criminal trial ----Motive—Failure to prove—Effect—Prosecution alleged prior murder of brother of co-accused as motive; complainant admitted appellant and co-accused were neither complainants nor witnesses in that case—Motive held unsubstantiated—Where motive is alleged but not proved, benefit goes to accused—Reliance placed on Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670). (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Recovery of weapon—Lack of forensic link—.30 bore pistol recovered at instance of appellant—PFSA report showed crime-empty did not match recovered pistol—Recovery held inconsequential. Conclusion: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Multiple material infirmities including delayed/manipulated FIR, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, non-production of injured and independent witnesses, failure to prove motive, and lack of forensic corroboration—Benefit of doubt extended—Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted—Bail bonds discharged. Cited Cases: Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326) Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449) Qadir Bakhsh v. State [PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157 (DB)] Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103) Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670)

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 302, 34 Qatl-e-amd---Acquittal---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Scope--- Held, that the prosecution failed to establish the charge of intentional murder (Qatl-e-amd) against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case was riddled with significant contradictions, lack of corroborating physical evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of bullet marks at the crime scene, and failure to secure forensic proof through exhumation of one deceased. The trial court rightly concluded that the case lacked credible, consistent, and legally sufficient evidence to convict. An appellate court may only interfere with acquittal if the finding is perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading/non-reading of material evidence. —Cited Case: Jehangir v. Aminullah 2010 SCMR 491; Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11; Muhammad Iqbal v. Sanaullah PLD 1997 SC 569 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 512, S. 265-C, S. 342 Absconding accused---Proceedings in absence---Delayed arrest and re-investigation--- Held, that the respondent was declared a proclaimed offender under S.512, Cr.P.C. and arrested years later. Despite this, the investigation remained deficient, as vital leads including witness statements, exhumation of one deceased, and scene verification were ignored. The eventual re-investigation ordered by the Regional Review Board in 2017 exposed gross lapses including non-identification of the grave, lack of evidence regarding motive, and delay of nearly 24 hours in FIR registration without satisfactory explanation. (c) Evidence Law---Ocular testimony---Contradictions---Delay in FIR---Benefit of doubt--- Held, that the primary witnesses—complainant and his sister—gave inconsistent statements regarding material facts such as timing, transport availability, and the forced removal of the father’s body by the accused. No independent witnesses came forward despite occurrence in a populated area. The delay in lodging FIR, shifting of body to a distant hospital, and failure to notify the nearest police station weakened the prosecution case. Where reasonable doubt arises from such discrepancies, the benefit must go to the accused. (d) Medical Jurisprudence---Exhumation---Delay in application---Evidentiary value--- Held, that no exhumation was timely pursued to establish the cause and identity of the death of deceased Baray Khan. The belated application in 2017—four years after the incident—was rejected. The Court observed that despite absence of a statutory time bar, delay in exhumation greatly reduces its evidentiary value due to decomposition of soft tissues. Failure of investigation to pursue this critical step further weakened the case. —Cited Case: Faryad Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 1086; —Academic Reference: Muhammad Maqsood et al., “Exhumation—Can Dead Tell Tales?”, 7(4) JFJMU, 48 (e) Criminal Trial---Presumption of innocence---Appeal against acquittal---Principles for interference--- Held, that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. Appellate intervention is justified only where the trial court’s conclusion is patently perverse or arbitrary. Mere possibility of a different view is not a ground to reverse acquittal. Trial court’s finding was well-reasoned and based on sound legal principles. Disposition: Appeal dismissed in limine. Acquittal of respondent upheld. No interference warranted as prosecution failed to discharge burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 420, S. 512, S. 87, S. 342, S. 173---Jail appeal---Procedure for appeal by convict in jail---Appeal initially forwarded to wrong forum (Lahore High Court) instead of Federal Shariat Court---Held, delay in filing was not attributable to the convict and was condoned under proviso to Rule 18(a) of the Federal Shariat Court Procedure Rules, 1981. (b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: ----Ss. 10 & 11---Rape---Abduction for commission of illicit intercourse---Acquittal---Burden of proof---Prosecution case hinged on weak Waj-takkar evidence, alleged abscondence, and uncorroborated medical report---Held, prosecution failed to produce credible eyewitness or any substantive link between accused and victim---Appeal allowed. (c) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 47, Art. 78---Dying declaration---Secondary evidence---Preservation of witness testimony under S. 512 Cr.P.C---Investigating Officer who recorded abductee's statement had died before trial---Prosecution failed to tender his prior testimony or formally request its admissibility under S. 512 Cr.P.C---Held, substituting such evidence with mere handwriting verification under Art. 78 was impermissible---Material evidence unlawfully withheld. (d) Criminal Trial: ----Waj-takkar evidence---Standard of proof---Evidence of last seen based solely on one relative without any plausible reason for presence at the scene---No corroboration, and witness admitted unfamiliarity with accused---Held, witness testimony not trustworthy; conviction based on such evidence unsustainable. (e) Abscondence: ----Proof of abscondence---Prosecution failed to produce non-bailable warrants, proclamation orders, or official documents to establish absconding---No conclusive statement under S. 87(3) Cr.P.C---Held, prosecution failed to prove abscondence as a circumstance against the accused. (f) Medical Evidence: ----Rape---Evidentiary value---Medical opinion suggested sexual intercourse but did not identify accused---Held, medical evidence alone, without supporting ocular or circumstantial evidence, was insufficient for conviction. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2023 set aside. Accused Sultan Ali Khan acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 512—Right of an absconding accused to be heard in appeal—Scope—Held, an absconding accused forfeits his right to be heard in an appellate forum unless he surrenders before the court—A fugitive from justice cannot invoke the process of law while simultaneously defying it—The appeal of an absconding accused may be dismissed without consideration on merits if he refuses to surrender despite reasonable opportunity provided by the court. ----Cited Cases: Chan Shah v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 43) Gul Hassan v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 89) Muhammad Aslam v. The State (PLD 1975 SC 160) (b) Administration of Justice – ----Appeals of absconding convicts—Right to fair trial—Held, courts must ensure that justice is not obstructed by the conduct of absconding accused—Appeals of absconders should not be indefinitely postponed, as it would amount to granting a premium on abscondence—However, where an appeal involves multiple co-accused, the court may separate the case of the absconder and proceed with the appeal of present co-accused while maintaining the ability to reconsider the absconder’s case upon surrender. Cited Cases: Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 481) Sher Khan alias Mammi v. The State (1975 P Cr.LJ 655) Babulal Agarwala v. The State (PLD 1961 Dacca 523) ----(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 374—Confirmation of death sentence for an absconding convict—Scope—Held, if a convict sentenced to death absconds, his right to challenge the conviction is forfeited—The High Court may confirm the death sentence in his absence, as allowing an absconder to delay proceedings would set a dangerous precedent—However, if such a convict later surrenders, he may apply for reconsideration, subject to court discretion. Cited Cases: Khanan Khan v. The State (PLD 1966 Pesh. 232) Gul Hassan v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 89) (d) Supreme Court’s Power to Ensure Complete Justice – ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Art. 187—Inherent jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Scope—Held, the Supreme Court has the power to issue orders ensuring complete justice, including dismissing appeals of fugitives and separating their cases from other co-accused—The court may also issue directives preventing abuse of its process by absconders seeking to evade justice while benefiting from procedural delays. Cited Cases: Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 1977 SC 4) Mushtaq Ahmad v. Siddiqullah (PLD 1975 SC 160) (e) Appeals Against Acquittal – ----Absconding respondent in an appeal against acquittal—Scope—Held, the court must examine the case on merits before reversing an acquittal, even if the respondent has absconded—However, an absconder cannot claim the right to be represented by counsel unless the court, in its discretion, seeks assistance for the sake of complete justice. Cited Cases: State v. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 1966 SC 481) Muhammad Aslam v. The State (PLD 1959 SC 119) ----Disposition: Appeal of absconding convicts dismissed. Appeals of co-accused to proceed separately. Court clarified that absconders have no right to be heard unless they surrender, and confirmed that appeals against acquittal must still be decided on merits despite the absence of the accused