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)