Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302, 34 & 449---Murder with common intention---House-trespass to commit offence punishable with death---Ocular account---Identification parade---Judicial confession---Corroboration---Prosecution version believed on basis of ocular account of complainant (brother of deceased) and widow of deceased, supported by servant witnessing escape---Non-nomination of accused in FIR/161 statements not fatal where witnesses gave detailed physical descriptions at first instance and later identified accused through a fair identification parade---Ocular account corroborated by properly conducted identification parade, judicial confessions recorded in accordance with law, and medical evidence---Convictions under PPC upheld. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ----Ss. 6, 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 21-I & 21-M---Murder of public servant/judicial officer---Nexus with official duty---Terrorism---Targeted killing of serving judicial officer at residence, motivated by grievance arising from performance of judicial functions, held to transcend private vendetta and strike at authority of State and administration of justice---Such act creates fear/insecurity and intimidates public servants, bringing offence within definition of terrorism---Convictions and sentences under ATA upheld---Distinction from plea based on Ghulam Hussain’s case made on ground of nature/impact of targeted attack on judicial officer due to official act. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat / criminal evidence principles ----Identification parade---Compliance with Rules and Orders of Lahore High Court (Chap.11, Part-C, Vol-III)---Safeguards---Identification parade conducted promptly, separately for each accused, with safeguards preventing prior exposure---Positive identification with specific roles; role of firing consistently attributed to one accused---Proceedings held fair and reliable. (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Ss. 164 & 364---Judicial confession---Voluntariness---Safeguards---Confessional statements recorded separately, after sufficient time for reflection, meeting mandatory requirements---No evidence of coercion/inducement/torture---Confessions mutually corroborative and consistent with ocular/medical evidence---Used as strong corroborative evidence. (e) Sentence ----Capital punishment---Mitigating circumstances---Single shot---Minor inconsistencies/procedural flaws---Effect---Minor inconsistencies not sufficient for acquittal may operate as mitigating circumstance for reduction/commutation of sentence---Where firing accused caused death by single shot and did not repeat despite opportunity, along with minor procedural flaws in confession, held sufficient to commute death to life imprisonment while maintaining conviction---Co-accused with no firing role already granted commutation by High Court; Supreme Court found no further interference warranted in their case. Cited cases: • Ghulam Hussain & others v. The State & others, PLD 2020 SC 61 • Riaz Hussain v. The State, Crl.A No.22-K/2022 in Crl.P.L.A. No.184-K/2020, decided on 23.10.2025 Disposition: Jail Petition No.498 of 2021 (Aamer Bhatti) dismissed; leave refused; conviction and sentences maintained as upheld by High Court. Jail Petition No.432 of 2021 (Rashed alias Chand) dismissed; leave refused; conviction and sentences maintained as upheld by High Court. Jail Petition No.432 of 2021 (Fiaz alias Mansha) partly allowed; converted into appeal; conviction upheld; death sentence “under each count” commuted to imprisonment for life; convictions and sentences in remaining offences maintained.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----Ss. 164(2), 364 & 173 --- Confessional/statement under S. 164—Magistrate’s duty to promptly forward to the trial Court—Failure to do so is a procedural irregularity that cannot prejudice the complainant or foreclose recording of the Magistrate’s testimony—Trial Court erred in refusing to examine PW-18 (then SDM who recorded S. 164 statement) solely because the statement was not before the Court prior to S. 242 proceedings—High Court also erred in upholding that refusal. Court directed that an inquiry be initiated into non-compliance with S. 164(2) and recurrence of such lapses by Magistrates; High Court to issue system-level directions and training to ensure timely compliance. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 540 --- Summoning material witness—Scope and duty—Court’s powers under S. 540 are wide and two-fold (“may” and “shall”); if evidence appears essential to a just decision, the Court must summon/examine or re-call the witness even at a late stage—Trial Court ought to have summoned PW-18 notwithstanding earlier procedural orders; adherence to technicalities cannot defeat the quest for truth in a murder trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 242 --- Accused’s examination—Where earlier proceedings overlooked an essential prosecution statement, the Trial Court may consider re-recording the S. 242 Cr.PC statement, if necessary to secure the ends of justice. (d) Constitution / Administration of Justice --- ----Right to fair trial (principles reaffirmed) Fair trial is a foundational guarantee; Courts must ensure all relevant evidence is brought on record and that parties receive a meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine—Procedural lapses by public functionaries (e.g., delayed forwarding of a S. 164 statement) cannot be visited upon a victim/complainant—Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. (e) High Court—Inherent Powers ----S. 561-A, Cr.PC --- Inherent jurisdiction—Not contingent on a party’s application; may be exercised suo motu to prevent abuse of process and to secure substantial justice—High Court’s dismissal of revision on the ground that the Trial Court’s order dated 23-06-2023 had attained “finality” reflected non-exercise of the inherent power where intervention was warranted. (f) Practice & Procedure ----Non-communication of order; reconsideration Order dated 23-06-2023 was passed in the complainant’s absence and not communicated; such circumstances furnished cogent grounds for reconsideration rather than rigid adherence to the prior order. Cited Cases: — Disposition: Revision accepted; orders of the High Court (22-04-2024) and District Criminal Court, Haveli/Kahutta (including orders dated 23-06-2023 and 20-12-2023 to the relevant extent) set aside; Trial Court directed to summon and record the statement of PW-18 (Syed Asif Gardezi). Trial Court may also consider re-recording the accused’s S. 242 statement if needed to meet the ends of justice. Copy of the judgment to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court through Registrar for action in terms of paras 8–9 (inquiry and systemic directions).

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Arts. 37 & 38; Ss. 164 & 364—Judicial confession—Mandatory safeguards—Delay—Printed pro forma—Police custody after confession Judicial confession recorded on a computerized printed pro forma containing pre-written questions in English and administered a day after production before the Magistrate, following a three-day post-arrest delay—Such practice does not satisfy the requirements of Ss. 164 & 364, Cr.P.C.; Magistrate must personally and face-to-face communicate warnings and ensure the maker’s conscious understanding of consequences—Handing the accused back to police after recording the confession is against the spirit of law—Confession held unsafe and discarded. Muhammad Azhar Hussain v. State PLD 2019 SC 595; Naqibullah v. State PLD 1978 SC 21; Muhammad Pervez v. State 2007 SCMR 670 followed. (b) Criminal trial—Last-seen evidence ----Standard of proof—Corroboration Testimony placing the deceased last in the company of the appellant and acquitted co-accused is a weak type of evidence and, without reliable corroboration, cannot sustain conviction for murder—Notably, the same last-seen account was disbelieved by the Trial Court while acquitting co-accused; parity considerations further undermine reliance upon it against the appellant. (c) Criminal trial—Investigation lapses ----Non-examination of initial Investigating Officer Initial I.O. not examined on the ground of retirement—Such omission is not a valid excuse and causes serious prejudice to the defence; failure to examine a material witness in the chain of investigation dents the prosecution case. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Benefit of doubt ----Standard—Single circumstance sufficient If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right, not as concession—Multiple infirmities (tainted confession, weak last-seen, non-examination of I.O., unexplained delays) cumulatively and individually trigger the rule of benefit of doubt. Muhammad Mansha v. State 2018 SCMR 772 applied. (e) Precedent distinguished ----Sulleman v. State 2006 SCMR 366 Relied-upon authority held inapposite; in that case the confession was recorded on the very next day of arrest with safeguards, unlike present facts marked by delay and procedural defects. Cited cases: • Muhammad Azhar Hussain v. The State PLD 2019 SC 595 • Naqibullah v. The State PLD 1978 SC 21 • Muhammad Pervez v. The State 2007 SCMR 670 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Sulleman v. The State 2006 SCMR 366 (distinguished) (g) Disposition — Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), P.P.C. set aside—Appellant acquitted; to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and law relating to circumstantial evidence ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Murder, kidnapping/abduction, unnatural offence and common intention---Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence---Principles for reliance on circumstantial evidence in a capital case---Prosecution alleged that deceased child was subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death and relied upon retracted confession, last-seen evidence, motive, medical evidence and pointing out of place of occurrence---Held, that in cases involving capital punishment, all incriminating circumstances must be so inter-linked as to form one complete and unbroken chain, one end whereof touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---Any missing link destroys the entire chain and renders such evidence unsafe for sustaining conviction---Circumstantial evidence is to be examined with extra care and caution because chances of procuring and fabricating such evidence are always present---Where the investigation shows indications of manipulation, false inference cannot be drawn against the accused---Prosecution having failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances, conviction could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1992 SC 254 • Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia 1992 SCMR 1047 • Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214 • Lejzor v. The Queen PLD 1952 PC 109 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C.---Retracted confession---Evidentiary value---Juvenile accused---Requirement of voluntariness, truthfulness and strict procedural safeguards---Accused juvenile remained in police custody for several days and confession was later recorded by Magistrate---Confession was retracted and was found to be highly suspicious---Held, that for acceptance of confession it must be voluntary, based on a true account of facts and duly proved at trial---Where the confessional statement was recorded without providing sufficient time for reflection and without extending, in the case of a juvenile, the desirable protection of consultation/counselling through a natural guardian or close mature blood relative having no conflict of interest, the confession lost its sanctity---Confession was further contradicted by established facts on record and clashed with other prosecution evidence---Subsequent insertion/manipulation regarding name of co-accused in the original record also struck at the root of the confessional statement---Magistrate stated that confession was made in Hindko dialect and translated by him into Urdu, but neither certified nor proved that he was fully acquainted with Hindko and had translated it word by word---In such circumstances, retracted confession was devoid of legal worth and could not safely be made basis of conviction on a capital charge. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 164 and general principles of admissibility---Tracking by sniffer dogs---No express or implied admissibility---Investigating Officer arrested accused after one dog, out of many, entered house of accused’s father and sat on a cot---No pointation memo of said proceedings was prepared, no evidence was available regarding training standard of dogs, and dog exercise was privately arranged by complainant party---Held, that no provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order endorsed such process as substantive incriminating evidence---Mere conduct of one dog, particularly in absence of legally recognized procedure and proper documentation, could not form lawful basis for implicating an accused---Such material was of no evidentiary value. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss.161 & 164---Last seen evidence---Chance witness---Identification not conducted---Reliability---Prosecution produced witness who stated that he had, by chance, seen deceased in company of one co-accused and two unknown persons---No identification parade was arranged for identification of the two unknown persons---Witness remained silent despite knowing of disappearance of child and circumstances of his introduction into investigation were doubtful---Statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded at belated stage---Held, that such witness was a chance witness and his evidence was cryptic and infirm in nature and substance---Absence of identification parade and unexplained silence of witness materially impaired his credibility---Where time of death itself was uncertain and distances between relevant places were not established, last-seen evidence was of no help to the prosecution and deserved outright rejection. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Motive---Belatedly introduced motive---Value---Prosecution alleged that accused committed offence to avenge beating given by complainant to them for plucking fruits from his orchard---Said motive was neither mentioned in the FIR nor disclosed before discovery of dead body and arrest of accused---Investigating Officer admitted that motive first surfaced through persons earlier arrested as suspects and later released---Held, that if motive had genuinely existed, it would normally have been disclosed at the earliest opportunity, particularly by complainant who was himself a practicing lawyer---Belated introduction of motive after arrest of accused rendered it doubtful and artificial---Such motive appeared to be a self-manufactured cosmetic baseline prepared with police connivance and remained wholly unestablished. (f) Medical jurisprudence and evidentiary value of medical evidence ----Medical evidence---Confirmatory nature---Not corroboratory for identification of culprit---Autopsy established that deceased child had been subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death---Only one swab was found stained with human semen but no semen samples of accused were obtained and sent for cross-matching---Held, that though medical evidence confirmed cause and manner of death, it could not by itself identify the perpetrators---Where necessary scientific steps for cross-matching were not taken, medical evidence remained merely confirmatory/supportive and could not furnish corroboration connecting accused individually with commission of offence. Cited Cases: • Mst. Ehsan Begum v. The State PLD 1983 FSC 204 • Ghulam Abbas v. SHO Police Station City Chiniot Jhang 1996 P Cr. LJ 1661 • Waqar-ul-Islam v. State PLJ 1998 FSC 13 (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 40 / law relating to discovery and conduct---Pointing out of place of occurrence---No fresh discovery---Crime spot already known to police---Accused allegedly pointed out school premises where offence had been committed---School was surrounded by boundary wall, had a gate and chowkidar, and was closed due to winter vacations---Police already knew the crime spot and no fresh fact was discovered in consequence of disclosure---Held, that where place of occurrence was already in police knowledge and no new incriminating article or fact was discovered as a result of alleged pointing out, such evidence had no legal worth---Even otherwise, if place was accessible, it could not necessarily indicate exclusive knowledge or involvement of accused. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Single reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Case marked by suspicious confession, inadmissible dog-tracking exercise, unreliable last-seen evidence, unproved motive, inconclusive medical linkage and valueless pointing out evidence---Held, that even one reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as of right and not of grace---Where prosecution miserably failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction could not stand. Cited Cases: • Riaz Masih @ Mithoo v. The State NLR 1995 Crl. 694 (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Appellate jurisdiction ----Non-appealing co-accused---Extension of benefit of doubt---Complainant had sought enhancement of sentence against non-appealing co-accused, but case against him was not distinguishable on factual or legal grounds from that of appellants---Held, that where evidence against non-appealing accused is inseparable from and indistinguishable to that against appealing accused, the same benefit of doubt and acquittal can be extended to him as well. Cited Cases: • Haji Syed Rafi Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1992 SC 251 • Muhabbat Ali v. The State 1985 SCMR 662 Disposition: Criminal Appeals No.115 and 116 of 2013 were allowed; convictions and sentences of Hashim Qasim and Khayam Khurshid were set aside and both were acquitted of all charges. Benefit of doubt was also extended to non-appealing accused Shoaib Ahmed, who too was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Criminal Petition No.161 of 2013 seeking enhancement of sentence was held to have become infructuous and was dismissed. Hashim Qasim v. The State and Khayam Khurshid v. The State, Criminal Appeals No.115 & 116 of 2013, decided on 12.04.2017 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 164 & 364---Confessional statements---Recording of confessional statements of accused---Compliance with mandatory provisions---Requirements---Effect of non-compliance---Three accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment based on alleged confessional statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Federal Shariat Court observed that the confessional statements were vague, lacking in essential particulars, and identical in sequence and language, raising suspicion of fabrication---Statements were recorded without providing sufficient reflection time, and without fulfilling the procedural safeguards mandated under S.364, Cr.P.C.---Judicial Magistrate admitted that statements were typed and dictated to a clerk, and were not explained to the accused in their native language (Pashto)---Statements were recorded in Urdu/English while the accused were Pashto speakers, with no record of interpretation or comprehension---Held, that the confessional statements were involuntary, not recorded in compliance with law, and inadmissible. Cited Case: Muhammad Ismail v. State 2017 SCMR 713. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984): ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse inference---Non-examination of key witnesses---Prosecution failed to examine key witnesses including PW Siraj Ahmed and Daulat Khan, whose statements were critical to establishing identity of the accused and recovery of stolen property---Prosecution took the plea that these witnesses had been won over, yet failed to produce any medical record or supporting documents for non-production---Held, that adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO must be drawn against the prosecution for withholding best available evidence. (c) Criminal Trial: ----Benefit of doubt---Delayed nomination of accused---Unexplained delay in recording statements---Effect---Accused were not named in the FIR or mursaila---Names surfaced more than 30 days later in statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., based solely on hearsay without disclosing source of information---Court observed that unexplained delay in naming accused renders their statements highly doubtful and unreliable---Benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Cited Case: Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 412 & 202---Robbery and concealment of stolen property---Failure to prove recoveries---Confessional statements not corroborated---No incriminating material recovered from the accused at the time of arrest---Prosecution failed to establish recovery of stolen currency, motorcycles or mobile phones---Alleged recoveries were undocumented, unsealed, or not linked to the accused---Motorcycle was not properly identified through chassis or registration records---Held, that prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. (e) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979): ----S. 17(4)---Conviction under Harrabah---Prosecution evidence insufficient---Conviction based on defective confessional statements and inadmissible evidence---Federal Shariat Court observed that conviction under S.17(4) of the Ordinance cannot be sustained in absence of credible, independent, and corroborated evidence---Benefit of doubt extended to appellants. (f) Criminal Jurisprudence: ----Standard of proof---Principle of benefit of doubt---Multiple infirmities in prosecution case---Effect---Where multiple doubts exist including procedural irregularities, inadmissible evidence, delayed statements, and contradictions in prosecution witnesses, no conviction can be sustained---Held, that benefit of doubt is a right of the accused and must be given even if a single material doubt arises. ---Cited Cases: • Akhtar Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 • Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 1997 SCMR 25 • Ghulam Qadir v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 ----Disposition: Jail Criminal Appeal No. 07-I of 2022 allowed---Conviction and sentence of Khadim Hussain, Naseeb Ullah, and Abdur Rehman set aside---Appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt---Criminal Appeal No. 01-I of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 01-I of 2023 dismissed.