Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 324, 353, 396, 435, 427, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)----S. 7---Appreciation of evidence---Unnamed accused---Conviction on capital charge---Sustainability---FIR was lodged against unknown assailants and appellants were not nominated by name---Informant attempted to give physical descriptions of only some assailants, but gave no identifying particulars of the remaining alleged offenders including the driver and the LMG operator---Prosecution case rested mainly on ocular account of two witnesses who, despite alleged indiscriminate firing, remained completely unhurt and whose conduct in immediately chasing heavily armed assailants, though they were in plain clothes, unarmed, and had already witnessed one death and multiple serious injuries, was held to be unnatural and contrary to normal human behaviour---Their claimed ability, during a sudden life-threatening attack, to observe and retain minute features such as age, height, complexion and clothing of the assailants was also found inherently improbable---Presence of said witnesses at the place of occurrence was not established through any independent and unimpeachable evidence---Held, that prosecution version suffered from material improbabilities and could not safely sustain conviction on capital charge. (b) Criminal trial---Identification parade---Evidentiary value---Joint identification parade of multiple accused---Effect---Identification parade in the present case was not conducted through injured witnesses, but through two alleged eyewitnesses, and that too jointly in respect of multiple accused---It is a settled rule that each accused is to be put to identification separately and a joint identification parade is unsafe, unreliable and has consistently been disapproved by the Supreme Court---Such defective identification proceedings lost their corroborative value and could not be safely relied upon for maintaining conviction. Cited cases: Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189); Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142); Ziaullah alias Jaji v. The State (2008 SCMR 1210); Bacha Zeb v. The State (2010 SCMR 1189); Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537). (c) Criminal trial---Identification parade---Prior disclosure of identity of accused to police---Effect---Appellants had already been arrested in another criminal case and were in judicial custody when, according to the prosecution itself, they allegedly disclosed involvement in the present occurrence and were thereafter formally arrested in this case---Where identity of accused already stands disclosed to police before holding of identification parade, sanctity and evidentiary worth of such parade becomes highly doubtful---Held, that identification evidence so procured had lost legal significance as corroborative evidence. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat / criminal jurisprudence principles---Disclosure by accused in another case---Acquittal in that case---Effect---Appellants had allegedly been linked with the present occurrence through disclosures made by them in FIR No.73 dated 24.04.2010, but in that very case they had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2022---In such circumstances, the alleged disclosure lost legal weight and could not validly connect the appellants with the present crime---Prosecution further failed to produce any independent direct or circumstantial evidence reasonably connecting the appellants with commission of the offence. (e) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Where prosecution evidence is afflicted with material inconsistencies, inherent improbabilities and defects going to the root of the case, benefit of doubt must be extended to accused---Such benefit is not a matter of grace or concession but a matter of right---Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient to dislodge prosecution case---Held, that Courts below failed to properly notice serious infirmities in prosecution evidence and thereby fell into error in maintaining conviction and death sentence. Appeal was allowed, convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court and maintained by the High Court were set aside, appellants were acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt, and were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860—Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D, 337-F(i) & 337-F(ii)—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 342, 382-B & 544—Sentence of death—Commutation—Subsequent mental illness—Schizophrenia—Supervening and mitigating circumstance—The appellant was convicted for the murder of three minor sons of the complainant, who was his real brother, and for causing knife injuries to the complainant’s wife. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution case stood proved beyond doubt through the natural and confidence-inspiring ocular account of the injured mother, corroborated by the complainant and other witnesses as well as by medical evidence. The Court observed that, in the circumstances of the case, false implication was wholly improbable, particularly where the bereaved parents themselves were witnesses to the murder of their own children. The conviction on merits was, therefore, maintained. However, on the question of sentence, the Court held that although nothing had been brought on record to establish that at the time of commission of the offence the appellant was suffering from such mental infirmity as would impair his criminal responsibility, the subsequent medical evaluation ordered by the Court conclusively established that he was suffering from schizophrenia and was under treatment requiring regular follow-up. In these circumstances, the appellant’s diagnosed mental illness constituted a supervening and mitigating circumstance warranting commutation of the sentence of death to imprisonment for life on all three counts of murder. Criminal law—Mental illness—Execution of mentally ill convict—Humanity and conscience of law—The Supreme Court held that execution of a person suffering from profound mental illness offends the dictates of humanity and the settled conscience of law. The Court emphasized that the death penalty is premised on retribution and deterrence, both of which assume the offender’s rational capacity to comprehend the nature and wrongfulness of conduct and to be influenced by punishment. A person afflicted with severe mental illness, particularly one suffering from delusion or psychosis, stands outside these assumptions. Therefore, while such illness may not necessarily erase criminal liability for the past act in the absence of proof regarding the accused’s condition at the time of occurrence, it may nevertheless operate as a supervening factor rendering execution inhumane and unjust. The Court observed that when the State executes a person whose mental illness has eroded his capacity for reason, the punishment ceases to reflect the majesty of justice and instead becomes an exhibition of cruelty inconsistent with law. Evidence and procedure—Medical Board constituted by Supreme Court—Psychiatric evaluation—Schizophrenia established—The Court took note of the appellant’s assertion in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. that the occurrence was linked to “mental health disorder” and, acting on that plea, directed constitution of a Medical Board. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the Punjab Institute of Mental Health, Lahore constituted a Board of Certification, admitted the appellant for comprehensive psychiatric evaluation, and reported that according to history and psychological assessment he was suffering from schizophrenia, was under treatment, and required regular follow-up for maintenance treatment. The Court treated this medical opinion as sufficient to establish the appellant’s present mental condition for purposes of sentence, though not for negating criminal responsibility at the time of the offence. Sentence—Concurrent running of sentences—Benefit under S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.—Directions for treatment in custody—While partially allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on three counts, maintained all other sentences awarded by the courts below, and directed that all sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant. The jail authorities were further directed to ensure provision of necessary medical treatment in accordance with the appellant’s diagnosed mental condition, including referral to the concerned medical facility where specialized care may be required, and to adopt suitable precautionary and supervisory measures so that the appellant does not pose a threat to other inmates and his custody and treatment remain consistent with prison regulations and medical advice. Case references—The Court referred to and relied upon the following authorities and materials: Sir Edward Coke’s statement in The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1797); Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399, 1986); Panetti v. Quarterman (551 U.S. 930, 2007); Madison v. Alabama (586 U.S. ___, 2019); and Safia Bano’s case (PLD 2021 SC 488). These authorities were cited to affirm the settled principle that execution of a person who is insane or mentally incompetent is contrary to law, humanity, and fundamental human dignity, and that mental unsoundness may constitute a supervening circumstance justifying commutation of death sentence to imprisonment for life. Appeal partially allowed—Death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life—Conviction and remaining sentences maintained—The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and allied offences, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on three counts on account of his established schizophrenia as a supervening and mitigating circumstance. All remaining sentences were maintained, to run concurrently, with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., and with further directions for continued psychiatric treatment and custodial supervision.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Triple murder with dagger blows---Injured eyewitnesses---Presence at place of occurrence---Stamp of truth---Prosecution alleged that petitioner, along with absconding co-accused, deceitfully called deceased persons one after another to haveli/cattle farm and murdered them with daggers, while two eyewitnesses sustained sharp-edged injuries when they attempted to intervene---Supreme Court held that medico-legal reports showed injuries on injured eyewitnesses caused by sharp-edged weapon, which constituted a stamp of truth and lent intrinsic assurance to their presence at place of occurrence---Presence of injured witnesses was natural and free from doubt---Despite searching cross-examination, defence failed to extract anything capable of casting doubt on their presence or veracity. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Ocular account---Broad daylight occurrence---Accused known to witnesses---Mistaken identity ruled out---Occurrence took place at about 3:00 p.m. in broad daylight inside haveli/cattle farm where petitioner was admittedly employed by complainant and deceased persons for care of cattle---Supreme Court held that petitioner was known to eyewitnesses as their employee; therefore possibility of mistaken identity stood completely ruled out---Eyewitnesses gave harmonious account on material particulars including date, time, place, manner of occurrence, prelude and aftermath---Ocular account was confidence-inspiring and rightly relied upon by Courts below. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Related witnesses---Murder of close relatives---Substitution of real offender rare---Complainant was real brother of two deceased persons and uncle of third deceased, while injured witnesses were sons/nephews within same family---Supreme Court held that it was beyond realm of prudence to believe that closely related witnesses, having seen brutal murder of their own kith and kin, would allow real culprits to escape and falsely implicate an innocent person with whom they had no prior animosity---Substitution of real offenders is a rare phenomenon, particularly where eyewitnesses have lost loved ones before their eyes. Cited Cases: • Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302(b) & 324---Medical evidence corroborating ocular account---Sharp-edged weapon injuries---Medical officer found seven injuries on injured witness Abdullah and four injuries on injured witness Ihtisham, all caused by sharp-edged weapon---Postmortem examination revealed eleven injuries on deceased Attique Ullah, twenty-two injuries on deceased Zaka Ullah and five injuries on deceased Shafaat Ullah---Medical officer opined that injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death---Defence cross-examined medical officers at length but failed to undermine their opinions or suggest that injuries were caused otherwise than by sharp-edged weapon---Medical evidence fully supported and fortified ocular account. (e) Criminal trial---- ----Recoveries---Bloodstained earth and incriminating articles---Positive PFSA report---Corroboration---Investigating Officer secured bloodstained earth and other incriminating articles from places where deceased and injured were found through recovery memos---Articles were sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, and positive forensic report corroborated prosecution version by confirming crime scene and connecting bloodstained articles and weapons with occurrence---Supreme Court held that medical and circumstantial evidence, including recoveries and PFSA report, completed and corroborated prosecution case. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Motive---Demand of advance amount relating to cattle farm---Proof---Motive alleged by complainant was that accused persons demanded advance amount from deceased in respect of cattle farm and, upon refusal, became annoyed and committed murders---Supreme Court held that prosecution proved motive through testimony of informant, which supported the ocular account and overall prosecution version. (g) Criminal trial---- ----Capital sentence---Triple murder---No mitigating circumstance---Extreme brutality and betrayal of trust---Supreme Court held that no mitigating or extenuating circumstance existed to justify leniency---Petitioner, acting with co-accused, deceitfully called deceased persons one after another to cattle farm and subjected them to merciless dagger attacks, resulting in cold-blooded murder of three persons and serious injuries to two intervening eyewitnesses---Number of injuries, particularly twenty-two wounds on one deceased, reflected extreme brutality and shocking disregard for human life---Occurrence was committed at place where petitioner was employed, trusted and residing with his family; abuse of such trust aggravated guilt---No sudden provocation, grave and immediate cause, remorse or exceptional factor was available to warrant lesser sentence---Capital punishment was justified. (h) Criminal appeal---- ----Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court---Conviction and death sentence maintained---Supreme Court, upon independent reappraisal of evidence, held that Courts below had rightly appreciated ocular testimony in conjunction with medical and circumstantial evidence---Chain of evidence was complete and unbroken---Prosecution successfully established commission of triple murder, injuries to two eyewitnesses, and motive---Conviction and sentence were based on confidence-inspiring evidence and called for no interference. Disposition: Jail Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused; conviction of petitioner under S.302(b), P.P.C. on three counts with death sentence as Ta’zir, compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C., and sentences under Ss.324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(iv) and 337-F(ii), P.P.C. were maintained; Murder Reference answered in affirmative by Lahore High Court remained undisturbed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i) & 337-F(ii)---Double murder of wife and daughter---Injured daughter as eyewitness---Natural presence inside house---Petitioner was charged with murdering his wife Mst. Kausar Ghani and daughter Mst. Zunaira Amin, attempting to murder his daughter Mst. Insa Amin and brothers-in-law, and causing injuries with dagger---Occurrence took place inside petitioner’s own house during Ramzan, where deceased, injured daughter and son were residing---Supreme Court held that presence of eyewitnesses Zain-ul-Amin and injured Mst. Insa Amin was most natural, probable and free from doubt, being inmates of the house and children of petitioner and deceased---Injuries on Mst. Insa Amin constituted unimpeachable evidence of her presence at the scene. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Injured witness---Evidentiary value---Special status---Supreme Court reiterated that testimony of an injured witness, if it rings true and is supported by medical evidence, is accorded special status in law of evidence---An injured witness carries built-in guarantee of presence at spot and would ordinarily not falsely substitute real culprit unless strong and compelling reasons exist---Injured daughter Mst. Insa Amin directly and consistently charged petitioner with dagger attacks on her mother, sister and herself; her testimony was coherent, natural and confidence-inspiring. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Children as eyewitnesses against father---False implication of own father---Improbability---Eyewitnesses Zain-ul-Amin and injured Mst. Insa Amin were children of petitioner and deceased---Supreme Court held that it was highly improbable and contrary to normal human conduct that children, having lost their mother and sister in the same occurrence, would allow real culprit to escape and falsely implicate their own innocent father, thereby depriving themselves of his support and protection---In Pakistani social setup, where family bonds and respect for father are strong, son and daughter would not ordinarily level such grave accusation against their own father unless constrained by truth of occurrence---Defence failed to show any motive, animus or extraneous reason for false implication. (d) Criminal trial---- ----Related witness---Brother of deceased---Presence explained---Complainant/brother of deceased had reached house of his sister a day earlier after receiving information regarding altercation between petitioner and deceased over sale of land---After Fajr prayer, he returned and witnessed occurrence---Supreme Court held that his presence was natural and satisfactorily explained---Being brother-in-law of petitioner, there was no reason to presume that he would shield real culprit and falsely substitute petitioner---No material contradiction was extracted from his cross-examination. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i) & 337-F(ii)---Medical evidence---Repeated dagger blows---Corroboration of ocular account---Postmortem examination showed 21 incised wounds on deceased wife Mst. Kausar Ghani and 8 incised wounds on deceased daughter Mst. Zunaira Amin---Medical examination of injured Mst. Insa Amin showed two incised wounds and a linear abrasion---Supreme Court held that nature, seat and number of injuries were fully consistent with ocular account that petitioner inflicted repeated dagger blows upon deceased persons and injured eyewitness---Medical evidence strongly supported trustworthy ocular account. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Motive---Sale of agricultural land---Documentary proof---Prosecution alleged that petitioner wanted to sell one acre agricultural land and wife/children opposed the sale---Supreme Court held that motive was proved through copy of sale deed and bank receipts showing sale of land and deposit of sale consideration in petitioner’s account---Positive PFSA report regarding bloodstained dagger further corroborated prosecution case. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302, 304 & 306---Qatl-i-amd---Proof for qisas---Father causing death of child---Wali being direct descendant of offender---Effect on sentence---Supreme Court considered Ss.302, 304 and 306, P.P.C. with Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Held that S.304 prescribes forms of proof required to render qatl-i-amd liable to qisas, namely voluntary true confession before competent Court or evidence contemplated under Art.17, Q.S.O.---S.306 expressly excludes qisas where offender causes death of his child or grandchild, and also where any wali of victim is direct descendant of offender---As petitioner was father of deceased daughter and husband of deceased wife whose wali included his direct descendant, qisas was not enforceable in such circumstances. (h) Sentencing---- ----Capital sentence---Doctrine of “judiciary-sponsored orphanhood”---Minor child of accused---Mitigating factor---Supreme Court observed that in capital cases involving a parent, the child is a silent victim---When State executes surviving parent, innocent descendants who have already lost one parent to crime are deprived of the second parent by State action---Court described such result as “judiciary-sponsored orphanhood”---Relying on welfare principle under Art.3 of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Court held that presence of minor children can serve as mitigating factor in capital sentencing---Where accused is sole surviving parent of minor child, commuting death sentence to life imprisonment preserves remaining familial link without excusing crime. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Death sentence as Ta’zir---Commutation to imprisonment for life---Brutality proved but mitigating legal considerations present---Supreme Court found conviction fully proved beyond reasonable doubt and noted extreme brutality: petitioner inflicted 21 incised wounds on his wife, 8 wounds on his daughter and injuries on another daughter---However, keeping in view non-applicability of qisas under S.306, P.P.C. and presence of minor surviving daughter, death sentence awarded under S.302(b), P.P.C. on two counts was commuted to imprisonment for life on two counts. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 382-B---Benefit of period already undergone---Discretionary relief---Extreme brutality---Supreme Court declined benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. despite modifying death sentence to life imprisonment---Occurrence reflected extreme brutality and mercilessness, involving 21 incised wounds on wife, 8 stab wounds on daughter and injuries to another daughter---Manner of commission and conduct of petitioner disentitled him from discretionary relief under S.382-B, Cr.P.C. Disposition: Jail Petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentences of petitioner under relevant provisions, except sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C., were maintained; death sentence as Ta’zir on two counts under S.302(b), P.P.C. was commuted to imprisonment for life on two counts; all substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was declined; appeal stood disposed of with modification in sentence.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Murder at Allama Iqbal International Airport---Ocular account---Accused apprehended at spot with crime weapon---Petitioner-convict was alleged to have fired at deceased Arif Ameer alias Tipu soon after his arrival from Dubai at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore---Eyewitnesses had gone to receive deceased and plausibly explained their presence at place of occurrence---Petitioner was apprehended at spot by eyewitness along with crime pistol---Supreme Court independently examined evidence despite counsel not pressing merits of conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., and held that ocular account was consistent on date, time, place, manner of occurrence and post-occurrence events---Lengthy cross-examination failed to extract anything favourable to defence. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Medical, forensic and recovery evidence---Corroboration of ocular account---Investigating Officer secured bloodstained earth, four empties of 9mm, ten empties of .30 bore pistol, card and broken glass pieces from place of occurrence---Crime weapon was recovered and petitioner-convict was handed over to police at spot---Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Punjab Forensic Science Agency reports corroborated bloodstained articles, weapon and empties---Medical evidence furnished by doctor conducting postmortem was in harmony with prosecution version---Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. was based on proper appreciation of evidence and called for no interference. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Ss. 6 & 7---Murder at public place---Public place alone not sufficient to attract terrorism---Supreme Court held that although occurrence took place at Allama Iqbal International Airport, a public place, mere place of occurrence is not by itself sufficient to attract provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Decisive factors are object, design and impact of act within contemplation of S.6, ATA---Prosecution failed to show that act was designed to coerce, intimidate or overawe Government or public, create fear or insecurity in society or any section thereof, or advance any religious, sectarian or ethnic cause. Cited Case: • Ghulam Hussain v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61 (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 7---Personal vendetta/private motive---Not terrorism unless statutory design proved---FIR was silent regarding any motive showing intention to terrorize public or overawe Government---Petitioner’s statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. suggested that occurrence was rooted in personal vendetta, as petitioner alleged that deceased supported the person involved in murder of petitioner’s brother---Supreme Court held that acts arising out of personal enmity, private vendetta, property dispute or individual motive, though grave and reprehensible, do not ordinarily fall within S.6, ATA unless accompanied by specific design or impact contemplated by law---Conviction and sentence under S.7(a), ATA were set aside. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Sentence---Motive neither alleged in FIR nor proved at trial---Effect---Informant did not attribute motive in FIR and prosecution failed to prove motive through independent evidence---Trial Court’s view that deceased had many enemies and petitioner might have been used as hired assailant was based on presumption and unsupported by material evidence---High Court rightly observed that motive remained a shrouded mystery---Supreme Court held that where motive is neither alleged nor proved through reliable evidence, normal rule is to commute death sentence to imprisonment for life---No case for enhancement from life imprisonment to death was made out. Cited Cases: • Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State 2013 SCMR 1602 • Muhammad Yasin v. The State 2024 SCMR 128 (f) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 7(a)---Conviction under ATA maintained by High Court---Set aside by Supreme Court---High Court had commuted death sentence under S.7, ATA to imprisonment for life while maintaining conviction---Supreme Court, applying larger Bench judgment in Ghulam Hussain, held that prosecution failed to establish requisite mens rea, design or impact necessary for terrorism---Conviction and sentence under S.7(a), ATA could not be sustained. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 324/34---Appeal against acquittal---Dismissal---Informant sought to challenge petitioner’s acquittal under S.324/34, P.P.C. and also sought enhancement of sentence---Supreme Court maintained conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., refused enhancement to death, and dismissed informant’s petition seeking leave to appeal. (h) Criminal trial---- ----Acquittal of co-accused---Supplementary statement---No nomination in FIR---No specific firing role---Double presumption of innocence---Co-accused Syed Ahsan Shah was neither apprehended at spot nor nominated in FIR by name; his implication surfaced subsequently through supplementary statement of informant---No specific role of firing at deceased was attributed to him---High Court acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt---Supreme Court held that acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence and interference is warranted only where judgment is arbitrary, capricious or wholly against evidence---No illegality, perversity, misreading or non-reading of evidence was shown; petition against acquittal was dismissed. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.1327 of 2019 filed by Khurram Ijaz was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentence under S.7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside, while conviction and sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C. were maintained. Criminal Petition No.1531-L of 2019 filed by informant for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal under S.324/34, P.P.C. was dismissed and leave refused. Criminal Petition No.1518-L of 2019 against acquittal of co-accused Syed Ahsan Shah was dismissed and leave refused. Not approved for reporting.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302, 324, 363 & 34---Murder of four family members inside house---Matrimonial dispute---Ocular account by informant, injured witness and eyewitness---Petitioner Fayyaz Akhtar, husband of deceased Mst. Aqsa Bibi, allegedly came armed with co-accused to house of his in-laws after matrimonial discord, raised lalkara and fired upon family members, resulting in death of Muhammad Zahid, Mst. Musarrat Bibi, Mst. Aqsa Bibi and Bilal Ahmad, while Faizan Ahmad sustained firearm injuries---Supreme Court held that ocular account furnished by informant, injured witness and eyewitness was straightforward, confidence-inspiring and consistent on material particulars including date, time, place, manner of assault and specific role of firing attributed to Fayyaz Akhtar. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Injured witness---Stamped witness---Evidentiary value---Injured witness Faizan Ahmad was inmate of house and sustained firearm injuries during occurrence---Supreme Court held that his presence at place of occurrence could not be doubted and his testimony carried intrinsic worth and great evidentiary value---Medical evidence supported ocular account regarding injuries sustained by deceased persons and injured witness. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Related witnesses---Close relatives of deceased---Effect---Eyewitnesses were close relatives of deceased persons---Supreme Court reiterated that close relatives who witness brutal murder of near and dear ones are least likely to substitute real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person, particularly where no previous enmity or motive for false implication is shown---No material was brought on record to suggest that witnesses had reason to falsely involve Fayyaz Akhtar while shielding actual offender. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Specific role, motive and medical corroboration---Conviction maintained---Petitioner Fayyaz Akhtar was specifically assigned active role of firing; he had direct motive arising from matrimonial dispute with deceased wife Mst. Aqsa Bibi; ocular account remained unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination and was supported by medical evidence---Supreme Court held that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt active participation and specific role of Fayyaz Akhtar in commission of offence---Conviction recorded by Courts below called for no interference. (e) Criminal trial---- ----Non-nominated accused---Subsequent nomination after three days---No source of identification disclosed---Benefit of doubt---Petitioner Ghulam Ghous was not nominated in FIR and was admittedly not known to informant at time of occurrence---He was nominated after three days by injured witness, who did not disclose source or basis of identification---Supreme Court held that if accused had been known, he would have been named in initial report---Subsequent nomination without proper basis rendered prosecution case against him doubtful. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Identification parade---Accused already named before parade---Reduced evidentiary value---Although identification parade of Ghulam Ghous was conducted, Supreme Court held that its evidentiary value was substantially diminished because he had already been named by injured witness before such parade. (g) Criminal trial---- ----General and omnibus allegation of firing---No specific injury attributed---No motive---Recovery disbelieved---Benefit of doubt---Ghulam Ghous was shown in site plan at outer/main gate whereas crime empties were recovered from courtyard; no specific injury on any deceased was attributed to him and allegation against him was general/omnibus firing along with co-accused---He had no motive against deceased persons and recovery of alleged weapon had already been disbelieved by High Court on sound reasoning---Supreme Court held that evidence against him was shaky, deficient and insufficient to sustain conviction. (h) Criminal trial---- ----Sifting grain from chaff---One accused convicted, another acquitted---Supreme Court observed that while appreciating evidence Court must sift grain from chaff---On reappraisal, prosecution evidence was reliable against Fayyaz Akhtar but insufficient against Ghulam Ghous---Conviction of Fayyaz Akhtar was maintained, while conviction and sentence of Ghulam Ghous were set aside. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 382-B---Benefit of period already undergone---Discretionary relief---Extreme brutality---Supreme Court declined benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to Fayyaz Akhtar, observing that offence reflected extreme brutality and gruesome manner in which he dealt with four close family members, including his wife, inside dwelling house---Occurrence was not result of sudden provocation or spur-of-the-moment act but reflected calculated vengeance arising out of matrimonial discord and annihilation of a segment of wife’s family---Such heinousness and betrayal of familial sanctity took case outside category where benefit under S.382-B should be extended as matter of course. (j) Sentencing---- ----Death sentence commuted by High Court to imprisonment for life---Complainant’s petition for enhancement---Refusal---High Court had commuted death sentence of Fayyaz Akhtar on four counts to imprisonment for life on four counts---Supreme Court held that findings of High Court were based on proper and judicious appraisal of attending circumstances and consistent with settled principles governing discretion in capital punishment cases---No misreading or non-reading of evidence was shown; petition seeking enhancement was dismissed. (k) Limitation---- ----Jail petition barred by 15 days---Condonation---Life imprisonment on four counts---Supreme Court condoned delay in filing jail petition in interest of justice, considering grounds urged and fact that petitioners had been awarded life imprisonment on four counts. Disposition: Jail Petition No.520 of 2018 was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentence of Ghulam Ghous were set aside and he was acquitted, with direction for release if not required in any other case; petition to extent of Fayyaz Akhtar was dismissed and leave refused; his substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was declined. Criminal Petition No.832-L of 2018 seeking enhancement of sentence of Fayyaz Akhtar was dismissed and leave refused; to extent of Ghulam Ghous, it was dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd---Double murder---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Firearm injuries to injured witness---Appreciation of evidence---Petitioner/convict was alleged to have fired with 12-bore rifle at two deceased ladies, namely Mst. Khatoon Bibi and Mst. Batool Bibi, who died at the spot, and also caused firearm injuries to injured witness Qadar Yar---Trial Court convicted petitioner under S.302(b), PPC on two counts and sentenced him to death on two counts, along with convictions under Ss.324, 337-F(iii) and 337-F(vi), PPC---High Court maintained conviction and confirmed death sentence---Supreme Court, on reappraisal of evidence, held that prosecution had successfully established guilt of petitioner through trustworthy ocular testimony duly corroborated by medical evidence---Conviction and sentences under all offences were upheld, however, death sentence under S.302(b), PPC was commuted to imprisonment for life on two counts due to mitigating circumstances. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Prompt FIR---Effect---Occurrence took place at about 7:30 a.m. and was reported at police station at 8:30 a.m., within one hour of incident---Police station was about seven kilometres from place of occurrence---Complainant was confronted with unnatural death of his mother and sister-in-law and injuries to his brother, and time consumed in arranging transportation and shifting dead bodies/injured was natural and reasonable---FIR was held to have been lodged with promptitude, ruling out possibility of consultation or deliberation. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Ocular account---Related witnesses---Injured witness---Evidentiary value---Complainant, eyewitness Muhammad Akram and injured witness Qadar Yar furnished consistent, natural and confidence-inspiring account of occurrence---They specifically attributed firing at two deceased ladies and injured witness to petitioner/convict---Their statements were consistent on material particulars, including date, time, place, manner of arrival of accused on motorcycle and use of 12-bore rifle---Presence of injured witness Qadar Yar could not be doubted as he had sustained firearm injuries during occurrence---Eyewitnesses were natural witnesses as occurrence took place in front of complainant’s house in early morning when they were taking cattle out, which was common rural practice---Petitioner was co-villager and already known to eyewitnesses, and occurrence took place in broad daylight; therefore, question of mistaken identity did not arise---Related witnesses who had lost close family members were unlikely to spare real culprit and falsely implicate innocent person---Ocular account was accepted. Cited Cases: • Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 • Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 • Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 (d) Criminal trial---- ----Related witnesses---Mere relationship not sufficient to discard testimony---Principle---Closely related eyewitnesses who had personally witnessed occurrence and suffered loss of close family members could not be discarded merely on ground of relationship---Possibility of substitution in such circumstances was extremely remote and, in facts of case, beyond realm of probability---Eyewitnesses had not exaggerated role of co-accused by assigning firing to him, rather confined their version to what they had actually witnessed, which supported their bona fides. (e) Criminal trial---- ----Medical evidence---Corroboration of ocular account---Injured witness received firearm entry wounds on right thigh, left thigh and little finger of left hand---Post-mortem evidence showed that firearm injuries sustained by both deceased ladies were ante-mortem and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death---Nature and bunch of firearm injuries on deceased persons, when examined with injuries on injured witness, established use of 12-bore firearm---Medical evidence fully supported and independently corroborated prosecution’s ocular account. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Death sentence---Mitigating circumstances---Commutation to imprisonment for life---Although guilt of petitioner/convict was established, death sentence required reconsideration in view of peculiar facts and circumstances---Occurrence was not outcome of any pre-planned or premeditated design---Petitioner and complainant party were neighbours and their houses were adjacent in same Mohallah---Incident originated when complainant party was taking cattle alongside petitioner’s house and petitioner’s wife became annoyed, went to complainant party’s house, and grappled with Mst. Khatoon Bibi deceased---Petitioner was attracted to spot upon grappling between his wife and deceased, and occurrence ensued thereafter---Such circumstances constituted mitigation sufficient to commute death sentence to imprisonment for life. (g) Criminal trial---- ----Motive---Failure to prove---Effect on sentence---Prosecution alleged that petitioner had previously been implicated in a criminal case regarding theft of buffalo at instance of complainant party and, due to such grudge, committed offence---No independent or documentary evidence, such as copy of FIR or judgment in said case, was produced---In absence of supporting material, alleged motive could not be held proved---Failure to establish motive was considered as a mitigating circumstance for reducing death sentence to imprisonment for life. (h) Criminal trial---- ----Recovery of weapon---No crime empties recovered from place of occurrence---Effect---Recovery of crime weapon allegedly effected at petitioner’s pointation and reported by Punjab Forensic Science Agency to be in working condition was held inconsequential because no crime empties were recovered from place of occurrence---Such recovery did not materially advance prosecution case and was considered while assessing sentence. (i) Sentence---- ----Advanced age of convict---Mitigating circumstance---At time of recording statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. on 21.09.2019, petitioner was approximately seventy years old, and on date of hearing before Supreme Court, i.e., 03.02.2026, he was about seventy-six years, six months and six days old---Advanced age of petitioner was considered as a mitigating circumstance---Ends of justice were held to be adequately met by commuting death sentence awarded on two counts to imprisonment for life on two counts. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 382-B---Benefit of previous detention---Concurrent sentences---Supreme Court maintained conviction and sentences under all offences, but commuted death sentence under S.302(b), PPC to rigorous imprisonment for life on two counts---All substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to petitioner/convict. Cited Cases: • Shah Hussain v. The State PLD 2009 SC 460 • Sayad Ikram and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others 2016 SCMR 467 Disposition: Jail Petition No.348 of 2024 was converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction and sentences of petitioner/convict under all offences were upheld; however, sentence under S.302(b), PPC was commuted from death on two counts to rigorous imprisonment for life on two counts; all substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to petitioner/convict.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148, 149 & 109---Murder---Attempt to murder---Rioting with deadly weapons---Common intention---Broad daylight occurrence---Identification---Where parties were known to each other and incident occurred in daylight, question of misidentification ruled out---Ocular account of complainant and eye-witnesses found confidence-inspiring and fully corroborated by medical evidence---Single fatal firearm injury attributed specifically to petitioner---Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt qua occurrence and role of petitioner. (b) Motive ----Proof---Failure to establish---Effect---Alleged motive based on prior altercation not proved---No contemporaneous complaint of alleged morning scuffle---No independent witness examined to support motive---Prosecution failed to prove motive satisfactorily---Non-proof of motive held not fatal to conviction where ocular and medical evidence are reliable, but relevant for determination of sentence. (c) Recovery of weapon ----Delayed recovery---Evidentiary value---Pistol allegedly recovered after long lapse of time during which accused remained proclaimed offender---Forensic report only confirmed mechanical fitness of weapon and did not link crime empties with recovered pistol---Recovery rightly disbelieved---Benefit extended to accused on this aspect. (d) Sentence ----Capital punishment---Conversion to life imprisonment---Principles---Where motive not proved and recovery of weapon doubtful---Single shot fired without repetition---Consistent judicial view that in absence of proved motive, sentence of death ordinarily not warranted---Life imprisonment appropriate punishment---High Court justified in commuting death sentence to imprisonment for life. (e) Criminal jurisprudence ----Parity of sentence---Co-accused---Argument of equal treatment rejected---Co-accused convicted for causing injuries only, whereas petitioner assigned specific role of causing fatal injury---Cases not identical---No question of further reduction of sentence on ground of parity. Cited cases: • Bashir-ud-Din and others v. The State, 2025 SCMR 1380 • Muhammad Bilal v. The State, 2025 SCMR 1580 • Nawab Ali v. The State, 2019 SCMR 2009 • Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State and others, 2018 SCMR 911 • Arshad Beq v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1727 • Allah Wasaya and another v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1797 • Mazhar Abbas alias Baddi v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1884 • Ghulam Muhammad and another v. The State and another, 2017 SCMR 2048 Disposition: Jail Petition No.6 of 2018 dismissed; leave to appeal refused; judgment of Lahore High Court dated 30.11.2017 upheld; conviction under section 302(b), PPC maintained; sentence of imprisonment for life, compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and sentence in default confirmed.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S.302(b)--- Murder---Proof---Ocular and medical evidence---Concurrent findings---Occurrence proved from record and depositions---Accused held to have caused death of Sadiq Mehboob and injury to Anees Ahmad---Ocular account and medical evidence found mutually supportive---Post-mortem injuries indicating firearm wounds on chest, lip and arm; lungs and heart ruptured; death due to severe bleeding---Conviction upheld. (b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S.324--- Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd/causing injury by firearm---Injured witness and medical corroboration---Injury to Anees Ahmad proved through medical evidence and ocular account---Conviction and sentence maintained. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S.342--- Statement of accused---Trial process---Trial Court examined multiple prosecution witnesses and recorded statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Trial concluded with conviction and sentences. (d) Evidence appreciation in murder trials ----Ocular account---Medical corroboration---Interested/chance witnesses---Contradictions--- Accused’s plea of false implication, interested/chance witnesses and contradictions not accepted---Court held that commission of offence stood proved and that ocular account and medical evidence corroborated each other---No legal basis found to extend benefit of doubt for acquittal in presence of sufficient incriminating evidence connecting accused with offence. (e) Motive ----Prosecution allegation not proved---Effect--- Motive alleged as prior killings of complainant’s brother and uncle and alleged compromise restraining accused from entering Kundian city---Held: prosecution failed to prove motive as no supporting record of prior case, no compromise document, and no proof of alleged restraint produced---Absence of proved motive treated as relevant factor while determining appropriate sentence. (f) Recovery and forensic evidence ----Weapon and motorcycle---Evidentiary value--- Recovery of gun held doubtful/inconsequential---Forensic Science Laboratory report only showed weapon was in working condition; no evidence produced to connect weapon with commission of offence---Manner of arrest and recovery on 30.07.2011 rendered recovery doubtful---Recovery/ownership of motorcycle not properly established as no registration/ownership record produced. (g) Sentencing ----Death penalty and life imprisonment---Mitigating deficiencies---Principles--- Where motive and recovery were not proved and recoveries were doubtful, case held to fall in category warranting life imprisonment rather than death penalty---However, notwithstanding absence of motive and weak recovery, other evidence (ocular account, medical corroboration, depositions) sufficiently connected accused with offence; therefore neither acquittal nor enhancement to death sentence justified. Cited Cases: • Ahsin Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 1367). • Fida Hussain v. The State (2025 SCMR 993). • Muhammad Yasin v. The State (2024 SCMR 128). (h) Criminal petition for enhancement ----Life to death---Non-sustainability--- Complainant’s petition seeking enhancement from life imprisonment to death penalty declined---Held: in absence of proved motive and reliable recovery, death penalty not warranted; High Court’s conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment remained justified. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 872 of 2017 and Criminal Petition No. 1642-L of 2017 dismissed; High Court judgment dated 06.11.2017 converting death sentence to life imprisonment and maintaining other convictions/sentences upheld; no acquittal granted and no enhancement to death sentence allowed. (Order dated 03.12.2025).

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use of criminal force or assault on public servant while he is performing his duty, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm injury and was apprehended at the spot---Record showed that 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant was, in fact, the very weapon used in the commission of the offence---On that premise, the Trial Court upheld the applicability of S.353, P.P.C and 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013---Insofar as S.324, P.P.C was concerned, it was observed that the offence was constituted not merely by the resultant injury, but by the existence of the requisite mens rea to commit qatl-i-amd coupled with an overt act in furtherance thereof---Prosecution case was that the appellant, upon being signaled to stop, opened direct fire upon the police party and, during the ensuing exchange, sustained a firearm injury on his right leg, while crime empties were secured from the spot---Prosecution witnesses had remained consistent on the essential features of the occurrence, namely, the alleged firing by the appellant, the encounter, his injury, apprehension at the spot and the recovery of the unlicensed weapon from his possession---Certain discrepancies were highlighted by the defence with respect to peripheral details---However, upon independent scrutiny of the record, such inconsistencies could be treated as minor in nature, not going to the root of the case, and insufficient to dislodge the prosecution version regarding the occurrence, arrest and alleged recovery---Such discrepancies did not materially impair the evidentiary substratum of the prosecution case---Thus, convictions under S.353 P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were maintained---Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use of criminal force or assault on public servant while he is performing his duty, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Act of terrorism, applicability of---Scope---Accused was charged that he made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm injury and was apprehended at the spot---Mere commission of a violent or firearm-related offence, by itself, did not ipso facto bring it within the ambit of "terrorism" unless the prosecution affirmatively established that such act was committed with the specific object of striking terror, creating fear or insecurity in the public at large or in any section of the society, or to achieve any of the purposes enumerated in S.6(1) of the Act, 1997---In order to constitute terrorism, the act must not only fall within the mischief of subsection (2) of S.6 but must also be intrinsically connected with the objectives mentioned in subsection (1) thereof---Even heinous or violent acts springing from personal disputes, situational encounters or isolated events, lacking the requisite design to terrorize society, would fall outside the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act---When the facts of the present case were examined, it was evident that the prosecution had failed to bring on record any material whatsoever to show that the alleged act of the appellant was actuated by any intent or design to spread terror amongst the public---At the highest, the prosecution case disclosed an alleged encounter occurring during routine patrolling, in which, according to the prosecution itself, only the appellant sustained a firearm injury, while no member of the police party received even a scratch and no independent member of the public was affected---There was neither any allegation nor any evidence suggesting that the alleged firing created panic, fear or insecurity in the locality or among the general public---Occurrence, as projected by the prosecution, at best emanated from a situational confrontation between the police and the appellant, lacking the essential mens rea required to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act---Offences arising out of personal or situational encounters with the police do not fall within the fold of terrorism in the absence of the requisite terrorising intent---Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was legally unsustainable and was set aside---However, convictions under S.353, P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were maintained---Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 Sc 61; Ali Gohar and others v. Pervez Ahmed and others PLD 2020 SC 427 and Muhammad Farhan alias Irfan v. The State 2021 SCMR 488 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use of criminal force or assault on public servant while he is performing his duty, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Offence under S.186, P.P.C---Applicability---Accused was charged that he made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm injury and was apprehended at the spot---Section 186, P.P.C, was attracted only when an accused was shown to have voluntarily obstructed a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, and such obstruction must be established through clear, specific and affirmative evidence independent of the mere use of force or resistance contemplated under other penal provisions---In the present case, the prosecution version, even if taken at its face value, was that the appellant allegedly fired upon the police party upon being signaled to stop and was apprehended after sustaining injury---There was no distinct or independent evidence on record to demonstrate any separate act of "obstruction" as envisaged under S.186, P.P.C, separate from the alleged act of firing itself---Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses had attributed any specific overt act to the appellant constituting obstruction of public duty in the statutory sense contemplated by S.186, P.P.C---Where the alleged obstructive conduct is inseparably merged with the use of criminal force against a public servant, the invocation of S.186, P.P.C becomes legally redundant and impermissible---In absence of proof of a separate and independent ingredient of obstruction, the conviction of the appellant under S.186, P.P.C could not be legally sustained and was, therefore, liable to be set aside---However, convictions under S.353, P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, were maintained---Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use of criminal force or assault on public servant while he is performing his duty, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused was charged that he made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm injury and was apprehended at the spot---In the present case, the prosecution had failed to satisfy the essential jurisdictional prerequisites for the applicability of S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; consequently, the conviction recorded against the appellant thereunder could not be legally sustained---Similarly, the convictions of the appellant under S.324, P.P.C was also not tenable---However, the prosecution had been able to establish the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under S.353, P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013---Resultantly, the convictions of the appellant under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and S.324, P.P.C as recorded through the impugned judgment, were set aside, while his convictions under S.353, P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were maintained---Nevertheless, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the occurrence, and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, the sentences awarded to him in respect of the said surviving offences were modified and reduced to the period he already undergone---Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. Muhammad Immad Qamar for Appellant. Mumtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2025.