Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Defective investigation--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---As per FIR, occurrence in the case had taken place on 25.11.2018 in Tehsil Headquarter (THQ) Hospital---Though Investigating Officer had neither prepared site plan of the crime spot nor had taken into possession any blood or bloodstained garments of the deceased through recovery memo. nor placed on file the Medico-Legal Report of injured and postmortem report of the deceased---Such flaws on the part of the Investigating Agency were obvious---However, as the trial in the case had been conducted in accordance with law and proper opportunity of producing evidence and hearing had been provided to both the parties, therefore, flaws in the investigation would not have any adverse bearing on the prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b), P.P.C, to S.302(c), P.P.C, and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324, P.P.C, was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment---With the said modification in conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account, proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three witnesses, injured/brother-in-law of accused, wife of the accused and a nurse---Besides their testimony, the accused was arrested redhanded at the spot along with crime dagger by the hospital administration and was handed over to Moharrir---In that regard the testimony of Hawaldar Levy Force posted in THQ Hospital was worthy of perusal as he had deposed that on 25.11.2018 he was on duty at DHQ Hospital where the occurrence took place---Accused was arrested along with dagger by the hospital administration and he informed Moharrir about the occurrence who along with other Levy Officials reached the hospital and arrested the accused along with crime dagger---Testimony of Moharrir fully corroborated the testimony of Hawaldar--- Injured deposed that his sister was married to the accused but due to harsh and cruel behaviour, she while abandoning her husband's house was living in her parents' house and by then she was also pregnant---On the fateful day, injured and others took his sister to THQ hospital for checkup and telephonically informed the accused to come to the said hospital---On examination of sister of injured, when doctor told that child in her womb had expired, the accused got infuriated and gave dagger blows to him and deceased, as a result, they both got injuries, and deceased succumbed to injuries---Wife of the accused had fully corroborated the testimony of eye-witness---Incharge nurse, THQ Hospital, was an independent and impartial witness being not related to any party---Said witness deposed that on the fateful day wife of accused was brought to the said hospital and she was complaining of bleeding---In the meantime the accused arrived at the hospital and threatened the hospital staff not to treat his wife---In the meanwhile, there was a scuffle between the accused and another person and later on she learnt that few persons were injured in the scuffle---Testimony of nurse fully proved the occurrence to have taken place inside THQ Hospital---Testimony of said witness also proved presence of the accused at the crime spot---However, one thing that could be inferred from the statement of witness was that there was a scuffle between the parties---Eye-witnesses were the wife of the accused while injured was his brother-in-law and it did not appeal to a prudent mind that such close relatives would charge an innocent person---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b) P.P.C to S.302(c), P.P.C, and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324 P.P.C was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment---With the said modification in the conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Spur of the moment scuffle---Non-repitition of dagger blow---Injury on non-vital part of body---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---Record showed that no Medico-Legal Report of injured was available on file and there was also no autopsy report of the deceased, however, an OPD chit furnished by THQ Hospital was available on file which showed that deceased had received a single stab wound of 3cm on upper thigh which was a non-vital part---Mere fact that postmortem report of the deceased had not been conducted would not damage the prosecution's case---Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment without premeditation and the deceased had sustained only single stab wound that too on non-vital part of his body---Accused had not repeated the act of giving further dagger blows to the deceased despite the fact that he was at his mercy---In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case coupled with single dagger blow on the person of the deceased that too on his non-vital part i.e. thigh, case of the accused fell within the exception (4) of the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C, which by that time, was punishable under S.304, P.P.C---Neither erstwhile S.300 nor exceptions thereto were available at present on the statute book, however, all the matters which were initially dealt with by erstwhile S.304, P.P.C, were now to be considered under S.302(c) P.P.C---Thus, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b), P.P.C, to S.302(c), P.P.C and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324, P.P.C, was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment--- With the said modification in the conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. Abdur Rehman v. The State 1998 SCMR 1778; Rahim Ullah v. the State 1985 PCr.LJ 463; Zard Ullah Khan v. The State 1998 MLD 855; Aqil v. the State 2023 SCMR 831; Muhammad Salim v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1983 SCMR 53; The State v. Muhammad Hanif and 05 others 1992 SCMR 2047 and Muhammad Ajmal v. The State 2022 SCMR 88 rel. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani for Appellant. Aqil Hussain, A.A.G for the State. Muhammad Furquan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2024.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860----Ss. 302(a), 302(b), 302(c), 304, 306, 307 & 308---Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder)---Distinction between Qisas and Ta’zir---Scope and applicability of Section 308, P.P.C.---Authoritative interpretation---Supreme Court clarified that Qisas and Ta’zir are two distinct and mutually exclusive legal regimes under Islamic criminal jurisprudence---Section 308, P.P.C., providing alternate punishment where Qisas is not liable or enforceable, is applicable only in cases where Qisas is otherwise attracted but barred due to specific exceptions under Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Where murder is proved without fulfilling the evidentiary requirements of S. 304, P.P.C., such case falls within the Ta’zir domain under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and Ss. 306–308, P.P.C., have no application---Confusion arose due to earlier judgments applying S. 308, P.P.C., to Ta’zir cases without assessing whether Qisas was applicable---Court categorically held that benefit under S. 308, P.P.C., is not available in cases where conviction is under S. 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta’zir.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 306---Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Categories defined---Provision does not create a distinct offence but provides exceptions to the enforcement of Qisas in cases where the offender is a minor, insane, parent, or where Wali is a direct descendant---Offenders falling under this provision may be exempt from Qisas but may still face punishment under S. 308, P.P.C., provided the case otherwise qualifies as Qisas.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 308---Punishment in Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Limited application---Provision operates only where Qisas is applicable but not enforceable due to exceptions in Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Does not apply to cases where punishment is awarded as Ta’zir under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(d) Case Law---Conflicting Precedents---Resolution by Larger BenchCourt reviewed case law spanning over two decades and resolved the long-standing judicial divergence regarding the applicability of Ss. 306–308, P.P.C.---Judgments in cases such as Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court (PLD 1994 SC 885) and its reversal in Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203) revisited---Court held that the latter judgment by a five-member bench holds greater authoritative value and correctly laid down the law---All subsequent decisions granting benefit of S. 308, P.P.C., in Ta’zir cases were held per incuriam to the extent they ignored or misapplied Faqir Ullah’s ratio.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 17---Tazkiyah-tul-shahood---Precondition for Qisas punishment---Qatl-i-amd punishable as Qisas can only be awarded if confession or competent eyewitness testimony (in accordance with Islamic standards) is provided---Failure to meet these requirements shifts the case to Ta’zir regime under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(f) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 203G---Interpretation of Islamic injunctions---Scope of judicial review---Supreme Court clarified that interpretation of Islamic injunctions for the purposes of testing repugnancy lies with the Federal Shariat Court and not with the Supreme Court or High Courts.Disposition:Court conclusively held that provisions of Ss. 306, 307, and 308, P.P.C. apply exclusively to cases of Qisas and are inapplicable to Ta’zir convictions under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Judicial clarity reaffirmed on the doctrinal separation of Qisas and Ta’zir frameworks in Islamic criminal law.Cited Cases:• Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman, 1999 SCMR 2203• Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir, PLD 2007 SC 111• Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2003 SCMR 855• Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, 2004 SCMR 4• Tauqeer Ahmad Khan v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2009 SCMR 420