Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b), 109 & 34—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 265-H(ii), 382-B & 544-A—Murder—Father setting wife on fire—Conviction based on ocular account corroborated by medical and forensic evidence—Death sentence—Scope and justificationAccused, Abid Hussain, was charged with the brutal murder of his wife, Mst. Naziran, by setting her on fire within the matrimonial home in the presence of their children. Conviction was primarily based on the direct testimony of the complainant (son of the deceased) and his sister, both natural witnesses, whose accounts were consistent and without signs of enmity. The prosecution’s version was further corroborated by medical evidence (77% burn injuries and cause of death as cardio-pulmonary arrest), forensic reports confirming the use of kerosene oil, and recovery of the bottle and burnt clothes from the scene. Motive, relating to a dispute over the sale of the family house, stood proved. The manner of the offence—setting a spouse ablaze in the presence of children—was considered heinous and premeditated. Supreme Court held that the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category, meriting the death sentence. Conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court were maintained—Appeal dismissed.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 2007 SC 539• Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530(b) Criminal trial—Appreciation of evidence—Ocular account—Related witnesses—Corroboration by medical and forensic evidence—Value of testimonyProsecution relied on testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the children of the deceased and the accused, who were residing in the same house. Their accounts, found to be natural and straightforward, were corroborated by medico-legal documents, death certificate, and FSL reports, confirming the use of kerosene oil. Supreme Court reiterated that close relationship with the deceased or accused does not automatically discredit testimony where evidence remains unshaken and trustworthy. The corroborative evidence ruled out the possibility of accident or suicide, establishing a clear nexus between the appellant and commission of the offence—Testimony of closely related eye-witnesses, found credible, was sufficient for conviction.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)—Acquittal—Benefit of doubt—Alleged instigation not corroborated by evidence—No specific role assigned in FIR—No presence at the scene of occurrence—Presumption of innocenceCo-accused Sabir Hussain, brother of main accused Abid Hussain, was charged under S. 302(b) read with S. 109 PPC on allegations of instigating the murder. However, no eye-witness account established his presence at the scene or any active participation. FIR and prosecution evidence failed to assign him any definitive role in the commission of the offence. Supreme Court held that mere implication in a domestic altercation without substantiated evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under criminal law. Giving benefit of doubt, the Court set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below—Appeal allowed—Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.Cited Cases:• Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048• Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 34---Discretion of the Court in awarding interest---Scope---Distinction between interest under S.34, C.P.C. and compensatory increase on equitable grounds---Principles of unjust enrichment and restitutio in integrum---Petitioner, as general attorney of vendors, executed sale deed in favor of respondent but concealed the fact that one vendor had passed away prior to execution---Legal heirs of deceased vendor successfully challenged the transaction, compelling the respondent to pay additional consideration to perfect title---Trial Court awarded Rs.5,766,000/- to respondent with 5% annual increase from the date of sale deed (11.08.2005)---Held, that interest under S.34, C.P.C. is compensatory and generally applies to an ascertained debt or delayed obligation---However, the 5% increase granted by the Courts below was not in the nature of interest under S.34, C.P.C., but rather a compensatory adjustment based on equitable grounds to neutralize inflation and depreciation suffered by respondent due to petitioner’s fraudulent conduct---Doctrine of restitutio in integrum required restoration of respondent’s financial position as if the wrongful act had not occurred---However, applying the increase from 11.08.2005 constituted unjust enrichment---Modification made to calculate the increase from 28.02.2018, the date of compromise with legal heirs of the deceased vendor.Cited Cases:• Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA PLD 2003 SC 290• Ghulam Abbas v. Trustee of Port of Karachi PLD 1987 SC 393• Terni S.P.A v. PECO Ltd. 1992 SCMR 2238• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue 2014 PTD 1939(b) Contract Law---Agency----Fiduciary duty of an agent---Breach of duty by concealment of material facts---Effect---Petitioner, acting as attorney of multiple vendors, failed to disclose the prior demise of one vendor, rendering power of attorney void ab initio---Sale transaction held fraudulent due to non-disclosure, leading to cancellation by Court---Agent’s conduct found to be in breach of fiduciary obligations owed to principal and vendee, resulting in liability for consequential losses suffered by respondent---Petitioner’s failure to contest adverse findings in previous litigation amounted to implicit admission of liability.Cited Cases:• Ghulam Abbas v. Trustee of Port of Karachi PLD 1987 SC 393(c) Civil Procedure---Approbation and Reprobation----Doctrine of approbation and reprobation---Scope---Principle not applicable where change in stance is necessitated by judicial findings---Respondent initially supported petitioner’s claim that deceased vendor had received his share but later sought recovery after judicial determination to the contrary---Held, that respondent’s change in position was not a case of approbation and reprobation but a necessary correction in light of subsequent findings---Doctrine does not apply where a party’s adjustment is based on adjudicated facts rather than self-contradictory assertions.Disposition: Revision petition dismissed with modification; 5% annual increase to be calculated from 28.02.2018 instead of 11.08.2005.