Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 393, 449—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-A—Qatl-i-Amd—Benefit of doubt—Absence of proven motive—Reduction of sentence—Scope. Petitioner Ahsin Ali was convicted and sentenced to death under S. 302(b) PPC for committing the murder of Muhammad Amjad during an attempted robbery, while co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was awarded life imprisonment under the same charge for allegedly restraining the deceased—Both were further convicted under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC for attempted robbery and house trespass, respectively—High Court upheld the convictions and sentences—Supreme Court, on reappraisal of evidence, found that prosecution failed to prove any specific motive for murder; no looted property or stolen items were recovered, and prosecution’s claim of dacoity was contradicted by lack of recoveries and failure to implicate alleged instigator—Postmortem inconsistencies did not materially contradict ocular evidence of hatchet-inflicted head injuries by Ahsin Ali, who was apprehended on the spot with a bloodstained hatchet—Nonetheless, due to lack of proven motive and in line with settled jurisprudence, death sentence was converted to life imprisonment—Convictions under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC were set aside as prosecution failed to establish ingredients of those offences—Compensation and default imprisonment under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. were upheld. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 389/2023 (Ahsin Ali) converted into appeal and partly allowed—Death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC reduced to life imprisonment—Acquitted under Ss. 393 & 449 PPC. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34—Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Participation limited to ‘Jappah’ (holding the deceased)—No injury attributed—Acquittal. Co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased (Jappah) during the assault—No injury was attributed to him by any witness—Weapons allegedly carried by him were not recovered on his pointation—Held, in absence of overt act or corroborating circumstances linking him conclusively to the offence, benefit of doubt was warranted—His case was distinguished from principal offender—Reliance placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850), Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470), and Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376), where similar limited participation led to acquittal—Consequently, conviction under S. 302(b) PPC was set aside. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 549/2023 (Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani) converted into appeal and allowed—Acquitted of all charges—Released if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850) • Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470) • Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376) • Arshad Beg v. The State (2017 SCMR 1727) • Allah Wasaya v. The State (2017 SCMR 1797) • Muhammad Yasin v. The State (2024 SCMR 128) • Iftikhar Mehmood v. Qaiser Iftikhar (2011 SCMR 1165) • Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State (2013 SCMR 1602) • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693)

Summary: (a) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven days in sending the weapon to Ballistic Expert---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of Ballistic Expert's report reflected that the crime weapon was received to their office on 20.11.2023 while it was allegedly recovered on 14.11.2023---Thus, there was delay of seven days in transmitting crime weapon from malkhana to Ballistic Expert, creating serious doubt into its safe custody at malkhana more particularly when the Mashir of recovery and arrest himself was Incharge Malkhana---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Enmity proved---Probability of false implication---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of record reflected that during trial in main case, it was admitted by complainant and witness in cross-examination that father of co-accused had already lodged FIR under S.302,P.P.C., against the father of complainant regarding the murder of his son, therefore, appellant and co-accused were falsely implicated in main case which created serious doubt into the veracity of prosecution case---Hence, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the accused and they were acquitted of the charge by Trial Court---In view of such background of standing enmity, false implication of present appellant in the present case by police at the behest of complainant party of main case could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---No denial that the prosecution had advance information of the availability of appellant, who was also absconder in main case registered with same police station---However, the raiding party did not associate a public mashir to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings nor took any effort to arrange private person to act as mashir and attest that all proceedings were being undertaken by the police impartially---Thus, there was clear violation of S.103,Cr.P.C---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in the case of prosecution---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Complainant himself had acted on three counts being complainant, author of FIR as well as Investigating Officer while mashir/Police Constable had also acted as InchargeMalkhana, testimony of such highly interested witnesses lacked credibility---An officer, who was himself complainant in the case, could not be expected to collect and preserve evidence, which would go against his case---Such complainant could not properly perform duties of an independent and fair Investigating Officer---Such practice of complainant Police Officers acting as Investigating Officers had never been approved---Besides, according to para 3 of R.25.2 of Police Rules, 1934, it was the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth and his object shall be to discover the actual facts and for the achievement of such object he shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person---Moreover, the appellant had been acquitted from the charge of main case andit being offshoot case the appellant deserved to be acquitted from the charge of present case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. The State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 Sc 408; Yasir Chaudhry v. The State and another 2012 MLD 1315 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (e) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Prosecution evidence consisted of only two prosecution witnesses---Complainant/Investigating Officer stated in cross-examination that after leaving Police Station, they patrolled through firstly “B” Pull, then “K” Pull and then arrived at place of occurrence, which was contradicted by Mashir/InchargeMalkhana by stating that they patrolled through “KP” City, then “K”, then “SG” and then arrived at place of occurrence---Complainant stated that they noticed accused at the distance of 50/60 paces which was contradicted by Mashir by stating they noticed accused at the distance of 30/40 paces---In his cross-examination, complainant/Investigating Officer claimed that they asked private persons to act as mashir but no one was ready which was contradictory to the version of FIR in which there was no mention about saying anybody to act as mashir, while the mashir simply stated that due to non-availability of private mashirs, complainant associated him and another Police Constable as mashirs---Thus, the prosecution evidence on such material points contradicted each other---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Appellant in person (on bail). Nazir Ahmed Bangwar, D.P.G for the State. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Conviction and sentence---Benefit of doubt regarding the identity of the shooter---Appellant was charged with the murder of a police officer during an attempted bank robbery and was initially sentenced to death under S. 302(a), P.P.C.---Upon reassessment of the evidence, the Court held that it could not be conclusively established whether the fatal shot was fired by the appellant or his deceased co-accused---Superior courts have held that uncertainty in identifying the specific assailant responsible for a fatal shot is a valid ground for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment---Conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C. maintained, but sentence reduced to life imprisonment with compensation of PKR 1,000,000 to be paid to each legal heir of the deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 154---FIR---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Appellant contended that the FIR was registered after a delay of 11 hours, which created doubts regarding the prosecution’s version---Court held that the delay was justified, as the priority was securing the crime scene and ensuring medical assistance to the injured, including the appellant, his deceased co-accused, and the deceased police officer---No benefit of delay was drawn by the prosecution, nor was the accused prejudiced, as he was arrested on the spot in injured condition---FIR was found to be credible and not fabricated---Reliance placed on Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State (2011 SCMR 872). (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ---- S. 7(a), (b), (c), (h)---Application of ATA---Scope---Court assessed whether the case fell within the ambit of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in light of Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61)---For an act to qualify as terrorism, there must be an object, intent, purpose, and design to create terror---Court held that the appellant’s intent was solely to commit robbery, and the murder occurred due to resistance by the security guards, without any intent to create terror---Mere severity of the act or public panic does not transform an offense into terrorism---Appellant acquitted of all ATA charges. (d) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- Ss. 324, 393, 427---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, and mischief---Evidence---Appellant was convicted for attempting to commit robbery, causing injuries to a bank security guard, and damaging property of the bank---Eyewitness testimonies, CCTV footage, forensic firearm analysis, and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case---Appellant was apprehended on the spot in injured condition, and his unlicensed firearm was recovered---Ballistic report confirmed that the empties found at the scene matched the appellant’s weapon---Court found the prosecution’s evidence to be reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring---Convictions under Ss. 324, 393, and 427, P.P.C. upheld. (e) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ---- S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of an unlicensed weapon---Appellant was found in possession of a 9mm pistol at the crime scene---Weapon was recovered at the time of his arrest and was linked to the crime through forensic analysis---No valid license was produced---Conviction under S. 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act upheld. ----Disposition: Appeal partly allowed---Conviction under S. 302(a), P.P.C. altered to S. 302(b), P.P.C., with sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment---All other convictions under P.P.C. and Sindh Arms Act maintained---Appellant acquitted of all charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State (2011 SCMR 872) Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 917) Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 725) Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 474) Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61)