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: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 396---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused nominated on the statement of co-accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and a passerby by firing during robbery and also causing firearm injuries to security guard---Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses, who were related to the deceased and complainant---Admittedly, the appellant was not nominated in the FIR---After the arrest of an injured co-accused, who was apprehended on the same night and upon his disclosure the present appellant was nominated in this case---However, statement of accused could not be used against his co-accused because the same was inadmissible in the eye of law---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Shabiul Hassan v. The State PLD 1991 SC 898 and Shafqat Abbas and another v. The State 2007 SCMR 162 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 396---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Delay of twenty months in conducting identification parade---Accused were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and a passerby by firing during robbery and also causing firearm injuries to security guard---Incident took place on 29.08.2018, but the identification parade was conducted after more than 20 months on 30.04.2020---No explanation had been offered for that considerable delay---Similarly, no features of the appellant and his co-accused had been described in the crime report as well as statements of witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C.---In that way, identification parade had no legal worth---According to the prosecution's case when the appellant had already been nominated by his co-accused, then subsequent identification parade lost its significance---Said identification parade was never put to the appellant in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---If any piece of prosecution evidence, which had not been put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C, did not have any legal sanctity---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam 2024 SCMR 757; Javed Khan alias Bacha and another v. The State and another 2017 SCMR 524; Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State 2011 SCMR 563 and Muhammad Shah v. The State 2010 SCMR 1009 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 396---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and a passerby by firing during robbery and also causing firearm injuries to security guard---As regard medical evidence, both deceased were found to have died due to firearm injuries---In the present case, no specific role of inflicting the injuries on the body of any deceased had been attributed to the appellant, thus the medical evidence did not support to his extent---In fact, the allegation of firing was leveled against co-accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence which can tell about nature of injuries, the kind of weapon used etc. but cannot identify the culprit. Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 396---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and a passerby by firing during robbery and also causing firearm injuries to security guard---Record showed that a Kalashnikov along with three live bullets, allegedly effected from a "ghairabaddhari" (abandoned house) and taken into possession---To prove the said recovery, the prosecution produced the attesting witnesses---However, the said recovery was totally inconsequential in proving the guilt of the appellant for multiple reasons---Firstly, no crime empty was sent to the Forensic Science Agency for matching with the recovered Kalashnikov---Absence of such forensic linkage rendered the recovery a disjointed event, unconnected with the actual offence in question---Mere recovery of a weapon could not by itself be treated as incriminating unless it was corroborated through forensic comparison with crime empties---Secondly, the prosecution failed to prove that the abandoned house from which the Kalashnikov was allegedly recovered was in the exclusive possession of the appellant---Site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer did not establish such exclusive dominion---Nor was there any other circumstantial evidence to connect the place of recovery with the appellant personally---Thirdly, the recovery was witnessed and attested only by prosecution witnesses who were related to the complainant and deceased---Therefore, the recovery of Kalashnikov along with three live bullets neither met the requirements of credibility nor fulfilled the legal criteria of relevance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478 and Arshad Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 564 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of doubt, however slight, arising from any infirmity in the prosecution case must always go to the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and Sikandar Ali alias Bhola v. The State 2025 SCMR 552 rel. Peer Masood-ul-Hassan Chishti, Defence Counsel on State expense for Appellant. Muhammad Waqas Anwar, DPG for the State. Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2025. Judgment Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, J .--- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.4189 of 2024, filed by Shahid Mahmood alias Demo, appellant against his conviction and sentence along with Murder Reference No.323 of 2023 transmitted by learned trial court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of the appellant being originated from the same judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib in case FIR No.274/2018 dated 29.08.2018 in respect of offences under sections 302, 396, P.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Syedwala, District Nankana Sahib whereby, after conclusion of trial in the said case, he convicted the appellant as under:- i) Under section 302(b), P.P.C.: sentenced to death for Qatl-i-amd of Zafar Ullah. He was also ordered to pay compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.200,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which he was ordered to further undergo S.I for 6 months. ii) 302(b), P.P.C.: sentenced to death for Qatl-i-amd of Umar Hayat. He was also ordered to pay compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.200,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which he was ordered to further undergo S.I for 6 months. iii) Under section 396, P.P.C.: sentenced to death for committing dacoity with murder of Zafar Ullah. He was also ordered to pay compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which he was ordered to further undergo S.I for 6 months. All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded through the FIR (Ex.PM), lodged by Basharat Ahmad complainant, is that on 29.08.2018, at about 06:00 PM, he was present in his jewelry shop along with his son Muhammad Zafar Ullah, Abdul Salam, Ghulam Sabir, and security guard Ghulam Rasool, when 6 or 7 unknown armed persons, riding on three motorcycles (Honda 125, United 70 CC, and Honda 70 CC), arrived. Two of them were carrying Kalashnikovs, one was armed with a pistol and a hand grenade, while two others had .12-bore repeaters. The intruders pointed their weapons, issued threats to kill, and forcibly entered the shop. They looted around 200 tolas of gold (including 150 tolas new and 50 tolas old), 900 tolas of silver, Rs. 6,15,000 from the almirah and Rs. 3,20,000/- from the counter. One of the assailants gave a blow with butt of pistol on head of Ghulam Rasool and snatched his weapon. When Zafar Ullah resisted, one of the accused fired three straight shots hitting him in the chest, neck, and right cheek, causing him to fall on the ground. The culprits then resorted to indiscriminate firing. While fleeing, a bullet struck a passerby Umar Hayat in the chest near the heart, who died on the spot. His companion Abdul Hafeez narrowly escaped. Zafar Ullah succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. The accused fled away from the scene while firing. 3. Initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. During investigation, Muhammad Nawaz alias Bhalli, an injured co-accused, was arrested. He allegedly disclosed the names of his companions including Shahid Mahmood alias Demo appellant, who was arrested on 05.03.2020 and subsequently identified in an identification parade conducted on 30.04.2020. The recovery of a Kalashnikov with three bullets was also shown to have been effected at his instance on 11.05.2020. After finalization of investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the trial court. Then the appellant was charge sheeted, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 24 witnesses in total. Among them, Ghulam Sabir (PW.3) and Abdul Salam (PW.8) were eye-witnesses of the occurrence allegedly took place inside the shop, whereas Abdul Hafeez (PW.5) and Muhammad Ilyas (PW-6) were present at the time of occurrence, which happened in the bazaar resulting in the death of passerby Umar Hayat. The investigating officers, namely Muhammad Boota SI (PW-15), Azmat Ali Inspector (PW-17) and Muhammad Hayat DSP (PW-23), detailed the sequence of investigation including recovery memos, site plans, and statements of the accused. Rehan-ul-Hassan, Magistrate (PW-11), supervised the identification parade of the appellant. Dr.Faraz Ahmad Bhatti (PW-12) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Umar Hayat (deceased) whereas, Dr.Usman Riaz Qadeer Maan (PW.13) conducted autopsy of Muhammad Zafar Ullah. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence including postmortem reports, inquest reports, recovery memos of alleged looted property and weapons of offence, crime scene reports of PFSA, polygraph reports and fingerprint examination reports. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, the appellant recorded his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied all allegations, pleaded innocence, and claimed that the identification parade was tainted and that no recovery was ever effected at his instance. He also contended that he was not seen in the CCTV footage produced during the trial and alleged that the prosecution had manipulated evidence to falsely implicate him in order to show performance. However, the appellant neither opted to record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. on oath nor produced any defence evidence. 6. Learned trial court found the ocular account consistent and corroborated by recovery, medical evidence, and identification parade. On such premises, conviction and sentences were recorded against the appellant through the impugned judgment, hence this appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments from both the sides and found it imperative to reappraise the entire evidence through the lens of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. It is a trite principle that in a case of capital charge, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute legal proof. We proceed to examine the pillars on which the prosecution case rests, i.e., ocular account, identification parade, medical evidence and recovery. 9. The ocular account was furnished by Ghulam Sabir (PW-3) and Abdul Salam (PW-8), who were related to the deceased Zafar Ullah and complainant Basharat Ahmad. Admittedly, the appellant was not nominated in the FIR. It was after the arrest of Muhammad Nawaz alias Bhalli, an injured co-accused, who was apprehended on the same night and upon his disclosure the present appellant was nominated in this case. It is settled principle of law that statement of accused cannot be used against his co-accused because the same is inadmissible in the eye of law. Reliance is placed upon the following case laws titled as "Shabiul Hassan v. The State" (PLD 1991 SC 898) and "Shafqat Abbas and another v. The State" (2007 SCMR 162). 10. We have further observed that the incident took place on 29.08.2018, but the identification parade was conducted after more than 20 months on 30.04.2020. No explanation has been offered for this considerable delay. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam (2024 SCMR 757) while dilating upon delayed conducting of identification parade held as under:- "The identification was conducted after a lapse of more than two years of the occurrence, therefore, it is hard to believe that the witnesses could still have momentary glimpse of the respondents." Similarly, no features of the appellant and his co-accused have been described in the crime report as well as statements of PWs under section 161, Cr.P.C. In this way, identification parade has no legal worth. Reference can be made to the case law reported as "Javed Khan alias Bacha and another v. The State and another" (2017 SCMR 524) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "8. The Complainant (PW-5) had not mentioned any features of the assailants either in the FIR or in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. therefore there was no benchmark against which to test whether the appellants, who he had identified after over a year of the crime, and who he had fleetingly seen, were in fact the actual culprits." Further reliance can be placed on the case law reported as "Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563). Moreover, according to the prosecution's case when the appellant has already been nominated by his co-accused Muhammad Nawaz alias Bhalli, then subsequent identification parade lost its significance. 11. It is also worth mentioning here that the said identification parade was never put to the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. It is settled law that if any piece of prosecution evidence, which has not been put to accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C does not have any legal sanctity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled as "Muhammad Shah v. The State" (2010 SCMR 1009), the relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "It is well-settled that if any piece of evidence is not put to the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C then the same cannot be used against him for his conviction. In this case both the Courts below without realizing the legal position not only used the above portion of the evidence against him, but also convicted him on such piece of evidence, which cannot be sustained." 12. As regards medical evidence, both deceased Zafar Ullah and Umar Hayat were found to have died due to firearm injuries. In the present case, no specific role of inflicting the injuries on the body of any deceased has been attributed to the appellant, thus the medical evidence does not support to his extent. In fact, the allegation of firing was levelled against co-accused Muhammad Nawaz. It is settled by now that the medical evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence which can tell about nature of injuries, the kind of weapon used etc. but cannot identify the culprit. Guidance in this regard can be sought from the case law reported as "Hashim Qasim and another v. The State" (2017 SCMR 986) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "The medical evidence is only confirmatory or of supporting nature and is never held to be corroboratory evidence, to identify the culprit." 13. Another piece of evidence on the basis of which the conviction of the appellant was recorded is the recovery of Kalashnikov (P.15) along with three live bullets, allegedly effected from a "ghair abad dhari" (abandoned house) and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PJ. To prove the said recovery, the prosecution produced the attesting witnesses of Exh.PJ, namely Ghulam Sabir (PW-3) and Abdul Salam (PW-8). However, the said recovery is totally inconsequential in proving the guilt of the appellant for multiple reasons. Firstly, no crime empty was sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) for matching with the recovered Kalashnikov (P.15). The absence of such forensic linkage renders the recovery a disjointed event, unconnected with the actual offence in question. It is now firmly established that mere recovery of a weapon cannot by itself be treated as incriminating unless it is corroborated through forensic comparison with crime empties. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled Nasir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 478), wherein it was held that in the absence of forensic examination linking the recovered weapon of offence, the recovery of the same cannot be given probative value. Secondly, the prosecution failed to prove that the abandoned house from which the Kalashnikov allegedly recovered was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer did not establish such exclusive dominion. Nor was there any other circumstantial evidence to connect the place of recovery with the appellant personally. The principle that recovery must be from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused has been emphasized by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Arshad Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 564) wherein it is held that recoveries effected from open or unoccupied places, or from places not shown to be in exclusive possession of the accused, carry little evidentiary value. Thirdly, the recovery was witnessed and attested only by prosecution witnesses who were related to the complainant and deceased. Therefore, the recovery of Kalashnikov (P.15) along with three live bullets neither meets the requirements of credibility nor fulfills the legal criteria of relevance. The learned trial court erred in giving undue significance to this piece of evidence while convicting the appellant. 14. The prosecution, in our considered view, has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As repeatedly enunciated by the superior courts in a chain of cases including "Tariq Pervez v. The State" (1995 SCMR 1345), "Ayub Masih v. The State" (PLD 2002 SC 1048) and "Sikandar Ali alias Bhola v. The State" (2025 SCMR 552), the benefit of doubt, however, slight, arising from any infirmity in the prosecution case must always go to the accused. It is not simply a procedural requirement; rather it serves as a crucial protection within the criminal justice system that helps preventing wrongful convictions. 15. Resultantly, we allow Criminal Appeal No.4189 of 2024, set-aside the conviction and sentences awarded to Shahid Mahmood alias Demo (appellant), who is in judicial custody and be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. Murder Reference No. 323 of 2023 is answered in the NEGATIVE and death sentence awarded to Shahid Mahmood alias Demo is NOT CONFIRMED. JK/S-41/L Appeal allowed.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Trial—Burden of Proof:----Ss. 302(b), 396, 440, 412, 148, 149 P.P.C.; Ss. 3, 4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908; S. 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997Presumption of innocence—Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt must be given to accused.Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to death on multiple counts by the Trial Court for alleged involvement in the murder of eight police officials and destruction of a police check post via bomb blast—Conviction upheld by the High Court—Supreme Court held that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defense—Where material contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and procedural irregularities exist, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond the shadow of doubt, and conviction was set aside.----Cited Cases:Haroon v. State (1995 SCMR 1627)Muhammad Iqbal v. State (1984 SCMR 930)Muhammad Fazal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436)(b) First Information Report (FIR):Delay in lodging FIR—Manipulation of time to create false immediacy—Reliability of prosecution’s case.Occurrence took place at 3:30 AM, but FIR was lodged at 4:30 AM, allegedly without delay—However, investigation revealed that substantial time was spent arranging for a crane to remove debris and recover bodies—Names of deceased police officials, whose bodies were still under rubble, were mentioned in the FIR, indicating that it was recorded after all formalities were completed—Held, FIR was delayed and backdated to falsely show prompt registration, raising serious doubts about its credibility.(c) Criminal Trial—Eyewitness Testimony:Reliability of chance witnesses—Failure to justify presence at the crime scene—Contradictory statements.Prosecution relied on two chance witnesses, Fateh Sher (PW-15) and Alam Khan (PW-16), who were neither named in the FIR nor residents of the area—They claimed they witnessed the crime but failed to justify their presence at the location at 3:30 AM—Despite witnessing a brutal attack, they did not report it to police and instead went to Chiniot to purchase a buffalo—Court held that failure to report the crime immediately cast doubt on their credibility, and their testimony was not safe to rely upon.----Cited Cases:Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142)Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan (2020 SCMR 319)Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta (2017 SCMR 142)(d) Identification Parade:Joint identification parade—Failure to attribute specific role to accused—Evidentiary value of identification.Identification parade for one of the accused was conducted jointly with another suspect, violating established legal principles—Prosecution witnesses failed to assign specific roles to the accused during the identification process—Court held that joint identification diminished the evidentiary value of the identification parade and created serious doubt about its reliability.----Cited Cases:Kamal Din v. The State (2018 SCMR 577)In the Matter of Kanwar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate (PLD 2019 SC 488)Azhar Mehmood v. The State (2017 SCMR 135)(e) Recoveries & Forensic Evidence:Failure to put evidence to accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.—Prosecution's reliance on inadmissible evidence.Weapons allegedly recovered from the accused were linked to the crime via forensic reports—However, these recoveries were not put to the accused in their statements recorded under S. 342 Cr.P.C., violating their right to a fair trial—Court ruled that any evidence not confronted to the accused cannot be used against them—Held, recoveries were inadmissible, and reliance on them was misplaced.----Cited Cases:Fida Hussain Shah v. The State (2024 SCMR 1622)Haji Nawaz v. The State (2020 SCMR 687)Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain (2017 SCMR 1710)(f) Motive:Prosecution’s failure to establish motive—False implication by police—Previous enmity.Prosecution alleged that petitioners were involved in terrorism-related activities—However, no prior criminal record was presented—It was established that the local police had a grudge against the accused due to a previous case where the Lahore High Court ordered the release of their relative, who had been illegally detained—Held, false implication due to enmity with local police could not be ruled out, and prosecution failed to prove motive.(g) Supreme Court's Findings:Prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt—Acquittal.Court noted multiple glaring contradictions in prosecution’s case, including:Delayed and manipulated FIR.Unreliable chance witnesses with contradictory statements.Illegal joint identification parade.Failure to put evidence to accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.Police's possible grudge leading to false implication.Held, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt extended to accused—Conviction set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges.----Disposition:Petition allowed—Conviction set aside—Petitioners acquitted and released forthwith unless required in another case.

Summary: Background: This case concerns criminal appeals by two appellants convicted by an Additional Sessions Court for charges arising from a robbery and murder at a petrol pump. Initially, the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under sections 396/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). They were convicted for a robbery-related murder involving three assailants, where one of the accused fatally shot the petrol pump owner. The appellants sought acquittal from the Federal Shariat Court, citing legal deficiencies in the original trial judgment, including jurisdictional and sentencing issues. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court’s judgment was valid, considering the appellants were convicted under section 396 of the PPC (dacoity with murder), which applies to crimes involving five or more persons, while only three assailants were involved. -----2- Whether the trial court erred in not providing reasons for not imposing the death sentence, as mandated by section 367(5) of the Cr.P.C. and section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court found that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants under section 396 of the PPC, as this section applies only when five or more persons are involved in the crime, while only three persons participated. Additionally, the trial court did not justify the life sentence in place of the death sentence, which contravenes section 367(5) of the Cr.P.C., requiring courts to explain any deviation from the death penalty in eligible cases. Consequently, the Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case for a new judgment, directing the trial court to address the mandatory provisions of law and allow the parties to present arguments. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) – Dacoity with murder, applicable when five or more individuals commit the offense. Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Requirement for courts to provide reasons for not imposing the death penalty in eligible cases. Section 17(4), Hudood Ordinance – Mandates the death penalty for the offense of haraabah involving murder. Muhammad Ismail v. The State, 2017 SCMR 713 – Established that statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to, implying that deviations are implicitly prohibited.

Summary: Background: The accused-petitioner was apprehended following an FIR lodged by the complainant on September 5, 2022, under sections 302, 341, 396 APC, 17(2) EHA, and 15AA(2). The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on the grounds that more than two years had elapsed since his trial began, attributing the delay to his counsel's illness and subsequent death. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds due to the delay in trial completion. 2- Whether the trial court correctly calculated the statutory period considering the delays attributed to the petitioner and his counsel. 3- Whether the trial court adhered to the procedural requirements under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code for postponing or adjourning proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the revision petition for post-arrest bail, holding that the delay in the trial was largely due to the actions of the petitioner and his counsel. The court emphasized that: The trial court rightly calculated the statutory period, excluding the delays caused by the petitioner and his counsel. The petitioner had engaged multiple counsels, and there was no explanation for the absence of other counsels during the illness of one. The petitioner could not use the statutory ground for bail as a tool to exploit procedural delays. The trial court is directed to conclude the case within two months. ----Citations/Precedents: Tanveer Aman Ullah Vs The State and others (Unreported judgment of this Court decided on 01.10.2020) 1992 MLD 1814 Khalid Mehmood Vs. Abdul Majeed Butt (1998 SCR 38) Messers Ahmed Clinic Vs. Govt. of Sindh (2003 CLC 1196)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 342, 417 & 103 Acquittal Appeal—Principles governing interference with acquittal—Standard of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Benefit of doubt—Role of accused—Mere presence insufficient for conviction—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent (Babal son of Abdul Lateef) in a case registered under Sections 302, 396, and 397, PPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of five hours without plausible explanation, raising doubts about the prosecution's version. Despite the complainant and eyewitnesses claiming to have identified the accused at the scene and allegedly chasing them to their residence, no immediate report was made to the police. The prosecution failed to assign any specific role to the respondent during the incident, and no evidence established his active participation. It is a settled principle of law that mere presence at the scene of an incident without an overt act is insufficient to warrant conviction. Furthermore, any doubt in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused. The Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent, and appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittal unless a gross misreading of evidence is evident, which was not the case here. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Mst. Jallan v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 2003 SC 644) Muhammad Zafar and another v. Rustam Ali and others (2014 SCMR 1639) Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others (2017 SCMR 1710) Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State (1992 SCMR 498) The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1995 SCMR 635) Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal upheld.

Summary: (Dismissed) The case involves multiple petitioners who were tried for the dacoity and murder of Muhammad Javed Rafique and the attempted murder of Sarfraz Rafiq. The trial court acquitted one co-accused and convicted the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions and sentences. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' statements and that the identification parade was conducted improperly. The court examined the evidence and found that the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses was consistent and reliable. It also determined that the identification parade was conducted in accordance with the guidelines. The court dismissed the petitioners' arguments and upheld their convictions, stating that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: Background: On November 16, 2023, the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan delivered a judgment in the criminal appeals case involving two separate appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 1-Q of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 4-Q of 2022). The appeals were filed by appellants who had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lasbela at Hub. The case stemmed from an incident at a petrol pump where three masked individuals attempted a robbery, leading to the death of an individual named Muhammad Danish. The appellants were convicted under sections 396/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, along with fines and compensation. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court correctly applied the provisions of section 396 of the PPC when only three individuals were involved, which requires five or more persons for the crime of dacoity. 2- Whether the trial court failed to provide reasons for not awarding the death sentence under section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which mandates the death penalty for Haraabah involving murder. 3- Whether the trial court’s judgment complied with the mandatory provisions of section 367(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) requiring reasons for not awarding the death penalty. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for re-writing of the judgment in compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 367(5) of the CrPC. The trial court was directed to reconsider the sentences, specifically addressing why the death penalty was not awarded, and to conclude the matter within one month. The court noted that the trial court had incorrectly applied section 396 of the PPC, which pertains to dacoity involving five or more persons, while only three individuals were involved in the crime. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC): Dacoity with murder Section 391, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC): Definition of dacoity Section 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: Punishment of Haraabah involving murder Section 20, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: Punishment for Haraabah liable to Tazir Section 367(5), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Requirement for providing reasons when death penalty is not awarded 2017 SCMR 713 (Muhammad Ismail vs. The State): Supreme Court ruling on statutory compliance in judgments

Summary: The appellants, Khurram Shahzad, Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Sajjad, appealed against their convictions and sentences for dacoity (robbery) and murder. They were initially tried by the Sessions Court and convicted by the Lahore High Court. The appellants were sentenced to death under Section 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for dacoity, and under Section 396 PPC for dacoity with murder. The High Court altered the death sentences to imprisonment for life while maintaining the other convictions and sentences. The appellants and the complainant filed petitions, which were granted leave by the Supreme Court, leading to the present criminal appeals. The prosecution's case was based on the statements of the complainant, Muhammad Sajjad, and other eyewitnesses. The appellants challenged the prosecution's case, citing material contradictions and discrepancies in the witnesses' statements. They argued that the evidence was based on conjecture and failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also questioned the conduct of the identification parade and claimed that the recoveries of weapons were planted. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the ocular account, medical evidence, identification parade, and recovery of weapons. The Court noted that the ocular witnesses remained consistent in their testimonies and were cross-examined extensively without significant contradictions being exposed. The medical evidence corroborated the witnesses' accounts. The Court dismissed the appellants' arguments and concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding the recovery of weapons and the identification parade, the Court mentioned that the High Court had already found the recovery of a pistol inconsequential. While the defense questioned the identification parade, the Court noted that the witnesses had identified the appellants during the trial. The Court also referred to the relevant provisions of the law on dacoity, including Sections 391, 395, and 396 of the PPC. In light of the evidence and legal considerations, the Supreme Court upheld the appellants' convictions and sentences, except for the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, which was set aside. The Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 342 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope — Principles restated — Presumption of double innocence reinforced — Interference by appellate court permissible only if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on gross misreading or non-reading of material evidence — Mere formulation of a different opinion is not a ground to disturb acquittal. Rel: PLD 1985 SC 11; 2008 SCMR 336; 2009 SCMR 288; 2011 SCMR 554; 2013 SCMR 565; 2014 SCMR 749; 2017 SCMR 1639; 1995 SCMR 635; 1998 SCMR 1281. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302, 395, 396, 148, 149 — Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7 — Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S. 17(4) — Murder, robbery, terrorism — Acquittal upheld — Incident involving attack on police vehicle, resulting in deaths and robbery — Contradictions in ocular account regarding presence and identification of accused — Evidence found unworthy of reliance — Doubts arising from inconsistencies in statements of injured eye-witnesses and lack of corroboration — Recovery of weapons or explosives not proved — No forensic or medical evidence collected. (c) Identification — Doubtful identification at night under panic — Eye-witnesses claimed to recognize 18 accused by name, parentage, and residence despite being under attack in a tarpaulin-covered vehicle — Such precise identification held implausible — No source of prior familiarity with accused shown — Identification rejected for want of reliability. (d) Evidence — Corroboration — Rule of caution — Court reiterated that where eye-witnesses are injured or related and contradictions exist, corroboration becomes essential — No recovery or independent corroborative evidence produced in support of prosecution version — Nexus with banned organizations alleged but not substantiated with any admissible material. Rel: PLD 2002 SC 643. (e) Delay and abscondence — Abscondence of respondents for years not held as conclusive of guilt — No recovery during arrest or on pointation — Abscondence alone insufficient to establish criminal liability. (f) Investigation — Serious flaws — No recovery of hand grenade shells, no post-mortem of deceased officials, no blood-stained earth collected — Crime scene processing held incomplete and unprofessional — Failure to conduct basic forensics undermined prosecution case. (g) Equality before law — Co-accused tried earlier and acquitted on same evidence — No appeal filed against their acquittal — Present respondents placed on equal footing — State’s selective challenge unjustified. Disposition: Appeal dismissed — Acquittal upheld — Trial Court’s judgment held well-reasoned and supported by evidence — Interference declined.