Summary: Opinion of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 186---Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope, nature and effect---President of Pakistan may seek opinion of Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance---Advisory jurisdiction, though not deciding a lis between parties in the ordinary sense, is a solemn constitutional jurisdiction requiring due deliberation, evaluation of arguments and formulation of opinion by the Court---Opinion rendered in Presidential Reference is not strictly binding like an inter-partes judgment, but carries significant credence, persuasive value and moral authority, and ought to be respected by constitutional organs---Questions referred to Supreme Court should not be ambiguous, indeterminate or incapable of formulation of opinion---Supreme Court is empowered to consider whether reference raises a constitutional question of public importance and to answer it accordingly. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A & 186---Presidential Reference concerning trial of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto---Fair trial and due process---Larger Bench had opined that proceedings of trial by Lahore High Court and appeal before Supreme Court did not meet requirements of fundamental right to fair trial and due process enshrined in Arts. 4 and 9 of the Constitution and later expressly guaranteed under Art.10-A---Although conviction had attained finality after dismissal of review petition, advisory jurisdiction was invoked to examine grave blemishes and glitches in the murder trial which had damaged public confidence in fairness of proceedings---Reference was maintainable to the extent of constitutional questions relating to fair trial, due process and administration of justice. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 156, 160, 169, 170 & 173---Investigation and reinvestigation---Closed case---Effect---Police are required to conduct investigation impartially and collect evidence from all possible angles, including material favourable to accused---If evidence is insufficient, Investigating Officer may release accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; if sufficient evidence exists, report is to be submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C.---After first investigation in murder case had been closed and cancellation report submitted before Magistrate, matter was resurrected years later without complaint by legal heirs or any aggrieved person and without lawful justification---No independent reasoning or cogent justification was available for reinvestigation---Reinvestigation must not be routinely ordered to favour influential persons or punish non-influential persons; if used improperly, it becomes a dangerous tool undermining integrity of criminal justice system and poses serious threat to administration of justice. Cited Cases: • Noor Mohd Holt Ltd. v. Department of Trade and others 1978 3 All ER 280 • Wiseman v. Borneman 1971 AC 297 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 28, 190 & 526---Transfer of murder trial from Court of Sessions to High Court---Jurisdiction and procedure---Offence under S.302, PPC is ordinarily triable by Court of Sessions, while High Court may try such case only when lawfully transferred or otherwise within jurisdiction---Transfer of case from Sessions Court to Lahore High Court was allowed in slipshod manner on very next day after Sessions Judge framed charge, without notice to accused, without considering statutory parameters and without judicially examining whether transfer was necessary for ends of justice---Transfer was not sought for convenience or safety but had effect of depriving accused of ordinary forum and ordinary first appellate scrutiny---Such hurried transfer raised serious concerns regarding fairness and due process. (e) Administration of justice---- ----Bias---Judicial impartiality---Fair trial---Test for bias---Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done---A Judge must decide cases according to law and conscience without fear, favour, affection, pressure, annoyance or external influence---Where circumstances create a reasonable apprehension in mind of prudent person that Judge may not act with complete impartiality, the proceedings are tainted---Bias may be personal, pecuniary, official, political, or arise from conduct showing prejudice, hostility, pressure or predisposition---In the murder trial under consideration, allegations of bias, pressure, annoyance with counsel and unusual haste created circumstances affecting appearance and substance of fair trial. Cited Cases: • Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1405 • R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 KB 256 • Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors 1852 3 HLC 759 • Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon 1969 1 QB 577 • R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte No.2 1999 1 WLR 876 • Porter v. Magill 2002 2 AC 357 • Ali Asad Zaidi v. The State PLD 2001 SC 663 • State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar AIR 2013 SC 364 (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A---Doctrine of natural justice and due process---Criminal trial---Presumption of innocence---Accused as favourite child of law---In every criminal trial, burden lies on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused is not to be treated as an unfavourable child of law but remains entitled to all safeguards of fair trial---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence must be independent, impartial and free from bias or prejudice---Personal bias, preconceived mind or jaundiced eye of Judge tarnishes fairness of trial and undermines equal protection of law---No person can be condemned without fair opportunity to explain, contest and defend---Fair trial and due process are sacred obligations for every Court and tribunal. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shahzad 2024 SCMR 51 • Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181 • Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 • Umar Khan v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745 • Capital Development Authority v. Sabir Hussain 2023 SCMR 627 • Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135 • Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1185 • Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Zia Muhammad 2023 SCMR 1583 (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Approver/accomplice evidence---Evidentiary value---Corroboration---Evidence of an approver is an acid test for Court; Court must examine whether such testimony is trustworthy and supported by independent reliable corroboration---An accomplice is generally unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars---Approver may be competent witness, but rule of prudence demands great care and caution before relying upon such testimony, particularly in capital cases---Corroboration must not be merely formal but must connect accused with commission of offence through independent and reliable evidence. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 374 & 376---Confirmation of death sentence---Trial by High Court in original criminal jurisdiction---Where death sentence is awarded by Court of Sessions, proceedings are submitted to High Court for confirmation under S.374, Cr.P.C., and sentence cannot be executed unless confirmed---However, where High Court itself conducts murder trial and convicts accused under original jurisdiction, no further confirmation by a larger bench of High Court is required; rather remedy lies by appeal before Supreme Court under Art.185 of the Constitution---In such situation, constitutional and appellate scrutiny by Supreme Court assumes heightened importance. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185---Right of appeal---Murder trial conducted by High Court---Denial of ordinary appellate forum---Where murder trial is conducted by Court of Sessions, convict ordinarily has appeal before High Court and further remedy before Supreme Court---But where High Court withdraws case and tries it itself, accused is deprived of ordinary first appellate forum and can approach Supreme Court directly---Supreme Court, in such cases, should ordinarily be inclined to grant leave and examine case carefully to ensure safe administration of criminal justice, especially where death sentence is involved---In the case of Mr. Bhutto, direct appeal before Supreme Court after trial by High Court left no ordinary appellate reappraisal by High Court. (j) Media interviews and post-retirement disclosures---- ----Judicial conduct---Bias and public confidence---Subsequent interviews of former Judge suggesting pressure, annoyance with defence counsel, and external atmosphere surrounding proceedings could not by themselves unsettle a final judicial decision, but they were relevant in understanding cumulative circumstances showing fair trial concerns---Such disclosures, read with record of proceedings, corroborated apprehension that trial and appeal were not conducted in atmosphere required by constitutional guarantees of due process and impartial justice. (k) Sentence---- ----Death penalty---Mitigating circumstances---Role of Judge---Judge must not be influenced by appeasement, flattery, malice, annoyance with counsel, or emotional pressure while deciding punishment---Criminal Court retains power to consider mitigating circumstances and impose lesser sentence where justice so demands---In murder cases before Supreme Court, Court may confirm death sentence, alter it to life imprisonment, or grant acquittal depending on record---In Bhutto review proceedings, submission seeking commutation rather than acquittal was recorded, but Court still had power to consider whether punishment could be altered---On independent appraisal of record and peculiar circumstances, death sentence was not safe to maintain; life imprisonment would have met ends of justice. Cited Case: • Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741 (l) Administration of justice---- ----Delay in answering Presidential Reference---Effect---Reference was answered after nearly thirteen years---Delay in adjudication undermines confidence in justice system, as justice delayed is justice denied---Courts must decide matters within reasonable time because prolonged pendency can prejudice rights of parties and create possibility of injustice---Proper balance in Court docket is necessary so that powerful or constitutionally significant matters do not unjustly eclipse other important matters, yet matters raising fundamental fairness concerns are not left unanswered. (m) Islamic jurisprudence---- ----Doctrine of repentance---Question framed in Presidential Reference---No opinion by larger Bench---One question in Reference sought opinion regarding doctrine of repentance under Islamic jurisprudence, but no opinion was rendered by Supreme Court on that question---Where trial itself was found to have been unfair and proceedings below were tainted by denial of fair trial and due process, unresolved question of repentance remained unanswered and did not alter conclusion regarding constitutional infirmities in trial process. (n) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 186---Reporting of opinion to President---After recording opinion on questions arising from Reference, office was directed to report opinion through proper channel to worthy President of Pakistan in terms of Art.186 of the Constitution. Disposition: Opinion was rendered in Reference No.01/2011 under Art.186 of the Constitution; Supreme Court, through the larger Bench, had already opined that the trial of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and appellate proceedings did not meet requirements of fair trial and due process under Arts.4 and 9 of the Constitution and later Art.10-A; Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, in his separate opinion, further examined advisory jurisdiction, reinvestigation, transfer of trial to High Court, bias, natural justice, approver evidence, confirmation of death sentence, right of appeal, media interviews, mitigating circumstances and doctrine of repentance; office was directed to report the opinion to the President of Pakistan through proper channel.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 26.06.2025 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25982-B of 2025). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Rape---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he forcibly committed zina with the daughter of complainant---Though Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim and DNA Analysis Report of Forensic Science Agency revealed sexual intercourse by the petitioner with the victim but the Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim did not reveal any marks of violence on the body of victim---Thus, it was yet to be determined at the trial as to whether the sexual intercourse was with consent of the victim or it was forcible---According to section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim she along with her father went to the police station but surprisingly neither victim nor her father got registered FIR and same was registered by the mother of the victim who admittedly was not present in the house at the time of the alleged occurrence---In her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim had not explained as to how the petitioner, being her first cousin, forcibly committed zina with her twice when her father was present in the house/sleeping on the roof top and as to how her relative entered in the house while passing through the street---Pleas raised and put to the victim by the petitioner during cross-examination to her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement also made out a case of further inquiry---On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Petitioner being in judicial custody was no more required for any further investigation or probe---Despite submission of challan in December 2024, till date the statement of victim and the prosecution witnesses had not been recorded and in that regard no plausible explanation had been offered by the prosecution---Bail could not be withheld as mere punishment---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and same should not influence merits of the case at the trial. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Irfan Zia, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and Muhammad Saqlain, I.O. for the State. Khalid Masood Sandhoo, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 27th August, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 374, 375 & 376---Death sentence---Murder reference---Duty of High Court---Reappraisal of entire evidence---High Court, while deciding appeal of condemned prisoner along with murder reference for confirmation of death sentence, is not confined merely to the arguments advanced in appeal---In proceedings under S.374, Cr.P.C., High Court is under a statutory duty to read, scrutinize and reappraise every piece of evidence and to examine whether evidence has been improperly admitted, excluded, misread or non-read by Trial Court---Even non-filing or withdrawal of appeal, or any concession by State counsel, does not relieve High Court of such duty---Death sentence cannot be confirmed unless High Court independently assesses guilt or innocence and appropriateness of sentence. Cited Cases: Noorul Haq v. State 1989 PCr.LJ 1322. Fakiro v. State PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 344. Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1968 SC 1438. Jumman v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469. Ram Shankar v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1239. Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202. Gul v. Emperor AIR 1921 Sindh 84. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 9, 10A & 14---Criminal trial---Heinous offence---Fair trial and appraisal of evidence---Five persons were brutally murdered, but heinous, gruesome or brutal nature of offence could not justify strained, emotional or haphazard appreciation of evidence---Cases must be decided on evidence alone and not on sentiments---Even in a shocking murder case, accused remains presumed innocent until prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt through legally admissible, confidence-inspiring and reliable evidence---Fair trial under Art.10A cannot be taken away merely because allegations are grave. Cited Cases: Muhammad Fazil v. State 1982 PCr.LJ 510. Abdul Ghaffar v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 887. Muhammad Arif v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 1827. Kazim Hussain v. State 2008 PCr.LJ 971. Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274. State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat/Criminal trial---Circumstantial evidence---Unseen occurrence---Standard of proof---Prosecution case was wholly based on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recovery of motorcycle, alleged stolen property, bloodstained knives/gloves and medical evidence---Circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined with minute care and caution---Facts and circumstances relied upon must form a complete and unbroken chain, one end touching the dead body and the other the neck of accused---If any link is missing, or circumstances are reconcilable with any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, conviction, especially on a capital charge, cannot safely be recorded. Cited Cases: Lejzor Teper v. Queen PLD 1952 PC 117. Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214. Saeed Ahmad v. Muhammad Irfan PLD 1986 SC 690. Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Nazir Hossain v. State 1969 SCMR 388. Sairan v. State PLD 1970 SC 56. Karamat Hussain v. State 1972 SCMR 15. Barkat Ali v. Karam Elahi 1992 SCMR 1047. Ibrahim v. State 2009 SCMR 407. Muhammad Hussain v. State 2011 SCMR 1127. Imran v. State 2015 SCMR 155. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. Fayyaz Ahmad v. State 2017 SCMR 2026. (d) Criminal trial---Chance witness---Last seen evidence---Unexplained presence---Witness claimed that he saw three persons outside deceased’s house at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. while going for condolence in another village---Witness could not name the person whose father had allegedly died nor the deceased person on whose death he was going for condolence---Presence at such odd winter-night hours did not fit ordinary rural practice of condolence visits---Explanation for presence near place of occurrence was unsatisfactory---Last-seen evidence was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Javed Ahmad v. State 1978 SCMR 114. Zafar Hayat v. State 1995 SCMR 896. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2004 SCMR 755. Muhammad Khalid v. Abdullah 2008 SCMR 158. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142. Ibrar Hussain v. State 2020 SCMR 1850. (e) Criminal trial---Witness making material improvement---Effect---Witness had stated before police under S.161, Cr.P.C. that due to darkness he could not identify the persons seen outside deceased’s house, but in Court he identified accused and stated that there was light---He had not described age, complexion, height or other identifying features to police---Such glaring improvement was deliberate and material, made to strengthen prosecution case---Witness became unreliable and High Court’s view that his testimony remained unaffected was held flawed and untenable. Cited Cases: Hadi Bakhsh v. State PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 805. Shahzada v. Hamidullah 1968 PCr.LJ 176. Amir Zaman v. Mahboob 1985 SCMR 685. Saeed Muhammad v. State 1993 SCMR 550. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Akhtar Ali v. State 2008 SCMR 6. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2010 SCMR 385. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azan 2011 SCMR 474. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. (f) Criminal trial---Recovery of motorcycle allegedly used in occurrence---No specification in FIR---No forensic test---No proof of ownership---Effect---FIR did not mention make, colour, registration number or other particulars of motorcycle allegedly seen outside deceased’s house---Investigating Officer claimed bloodstains existed on motorcycle seat-cover but failed to send same to Chemical Examiner or Serologist---No proof of ownership was collected and alleged informer regarding ownership was not examined---Site-plan of place of recovery was also not prepared---Recovery was deficient and could not connect accused with occurrence. (g) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---Robbery-cum-murder---Unnatural recovery story---Effect---Prosecution alleged that accused were arrested at a snooker club and immediately made disclosures leading to recovery of gold ornaments, cash, defence saving certificates, laptop and cameras---Story that accused, while casually playing snooker, immediately admitted involvement in capital offence and cooperated in recoveries was intrinsically doubtful and inconsistent with ordinary human conduct---Non-mention of scattered jewellery boxes in FIR and absence of such boxes in crime-scene photographs further damaged prosecution case. (h) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---No prior description or proof of ownership---Effect---In absence of description of stolen property in FIR or prior statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., recovered articles could not safely be treated as stolen property of deceased---Goldsmith’s testimony was weak as he produced no sale record or proper repair record and could not satisfactorily prove ownership---Surviving daughters of deceased, who were best persons to identify ornaments, were not used for identification---Laptop and cameras were also not forensically examined to establish ownership---Such recoveries could not form a reliable link in circumstantial chain. (i) Criminal trial---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs---Contradictions and omissions---Effect---Investigating Officer’s oral statement regarding mobile phones being called for through brothers of accused contradicted written recovery memos---Persons who allegedly brought mobile phones were not joined in investigation, their names were not recorded, and explanation for such recovery was unnatural---Theft of mobile phones was not mentioned in FIR or supplementary statement---Call-data theory was also not properly put to accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. and relevant persons called through SIM were not examined---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs was unreliable. (j) Criminal trial---Recovery of bloodstained knives/gloves---Public place---Non-association of independent witnesses---Unnatural conduct---Weapons were allegedly recovered from beneath/near Manara Pulley, a public place near shops and villages, but no independent local witness was associated---Recovery witnesses were close relatives of complainant and particulars appeared added later on recovery memos---Story that offenders wrapped bloodstained knives and gloves in polythene bags and buried them near water stream instead of destroying or throwing them away was unnatural---Recovery was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. (k) Criminal trial---Recovery of weapon of offence---Corroborative evidence only---Substantive evidence absent---Effect---Recovery of alleged weapon of offence is only corroborative and cannot by itself prove guilt where substantive evidence fails---If ocular or other substantive evidence is unreliable, recovery of weapon cannot independently sustain conviction---Recovery of bloodstained knives, even if assumed, was insufficient without reliable substantive evidence connecting accused with murder. Cited Cases: Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Saifullah v. State 1985 SCMR 410. Ali Muhammad v. Bashir Ahmed 2003 SCMR 868. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz 2007 SCMR 1427. Hayatullah v. State 2018 SCMR 2092. (l) Criminal trial---Bloodstained weapon---Forensic report not matching blood with deceased---Evidentiary value---Mere recovery of bloodstained knife or weapon does not connect accused with offence unless blood found thereon is forensically matched with blood of deceased---As with firearm recovery requiring positive forensic report matching crime empties, recovery of bloodstained weapon without matching report cannot be used as substantive or corroborative evidence against accused---Bloodstained knives/gloves in the case did not connect petitioners with murders. Cited Cases: Irfan Ali v. State 2015 SCMR 840. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Hamid Nadeem v. State 2011 SCMR 1233. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Azhar Mehmood v. State 2017 SCMR 135. (m) Medical evidence---Nature and scope---Supporting evidence, not corroborative evidence connecting accused---Medical evidence proved only that deaths occurred by cutting throats with sharp-edged weapon---It could confirm seat, nature and cause of injury, type of weapon and duration between injury and death, but could not identify offender---Medical evidence by itself does not connect accused with commission of offence and cannot constitute corroboration for involvement of accused. Cited Cases: Yaqoob Shah v. State PLD 1976 SC 53. Machia v. State PLD 1976 SC 695. Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain 1994 SCMR 1928. Mehmood Ahmad v. State 1995 SCMR 127. Muhammad Sharif v. State 1997 SCMR 866. Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal PLD 2004 SC 663. Iftikhar Hussain v. State 2004 SCMR 1185. Sikandar v. State 2006 SCMR 1786. Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Akram 2007 SCMR 1549. Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1103. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. (n) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 161 & 342---Test identification parade---Witness dying before trial---Effect---One Fazal Karim allegedly told police that he saw accused Qadeer with two unknown boys going towards locality of deceased’s house, but he died during trial and could not be examined---Investigating Officer did not conduct test identification proceedings of Khurram Shahzad and Naveed Asghar through said witness after their arrest---Statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of deceased witness could not be used to draw adverse inference against accused, especially when veracity could not be tested by cross-examination---Omission to hold identification proceedings was serious failure in investigation. (o) Criminal investigation---Defective investigation---Creating evidence instead of collecting evidence---Effect---Investigation of gruesome murder of five members of a family was marked by serious omissions, doubtful recoveries, absence of forensic examination, lack of independent witnesses, failure to conduct identification proceedings, and attempt to fill gaps through questionable evidence---Investigating Officer appeared to create evidence instead of collecting legally admissible evidence---Such investigation could not support conviction on capital charge. (p) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Suspicion and probability not enough---Standard beyond reasonable doubt---Finding of guilt cannot rest on high probabilities, suspicion, surmises or conjectures---If prosecution evidence leaves reasonable doubt, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession---Courts below filled missing links in circumstantial chain due to heinous nature of charge, resulting in grave injustice---Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: Muhammad Luqman v. State PLD 1970 SC 10. Tariq Pervez v. State 1995 SCMR 1345. Ayub Masih v. State PLD 2002 SC 1048. (q) Criminal appeal---Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court---Supreme Court’s interference---Where concurrent verdicts were based on superficial and cursory appreciation of evidence, overlooked serious pitfalls, and were founded on unreliable circumstantial evidence, Supreme Court could interfere---Conviction and death sentence were manifestly erroneous because prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and failed to rule out every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Disposition: Jail petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments of Trial Court and High Court were set aside; petitioners were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.