Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Kotli, which declared the complaint filed by the respondent, Mujtaba ul Rehman, as maintainable and initiated further proceedings. The complaint was filed under Section 203-E, Cr.P.C, for the offense under Section 492 B-C, APC, alleging damage to property. ----Issues: 1- Whether the complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable. 2- Whether the trial court correctly initiated proceedings based on the complaint. 3- Whether the petitioner’s objections regarding the ownership and possession of the disputed land were properly considered. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintainability of the Complaint: The court found that the trial court correctly declared the complaint as maintainable based on preliminary inquiry and report from the SHO, which showed that some part of the ladders/steps had been damaged/demolished. The prima facie case was established, warranting further proceedings. --Initiation of Proceedings: The trial court’s decision to initiate proceedings was based on sufficient grounds as evidenced by the SHO’s report and the complaint’s contents. The court emphasized that dismissing the complaint in the presence of sufficient grounds would be contrary to the principles of criminal justice. --Objections Regarding Land Ownership: The petitioner argued that the land in dispute was lawfully possessed by him and the proforma respondents. The court noted that the respondent had previously filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C for registering a criminal case under Section 447 APC, which was dismissed. However, the court maintained that this did not preclude the current proceedings, especially when the preliminary inquiry supported the respondent's claims. The court emphasized that the issuance of process under Section 204, Cr.P.C requires only a prima facie case, not full proof, and that objections regarding ownership and possession could be addressed during the trial. The court also noted that the petitioner has the opportunity to move an application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C if they believe there is no possibility of conviction based on the evidence. ----Citations/Precedents: 2016 P.Cr.LJ 601 PLD 2008 Lah. 441 2018 P.Cr.LJ 607 PLD 2009 Lah. 444 The court concluded that the revision petition lacked merit and was dismissed. The order of the trial court to proceed with the complaint was upheld.

Summary: (i) Confessional Statement:- Retraction of Judicial or extra-Judicial confession itself is not an infirmity to be considered sufficient to withhold the conviction.(ii) Delay in filling of appeal against conviction by convict appellant confined in prison.(iii) Rule 90. Facilities to Prisoners for filling appeals: it is obligatory upon Superintendent that he shall inform every convict prisoner on first admission to prison, of the period within which an appeal from the order under which he has been committed to prison may be filed.

Summary: Background: Impugned before us is the judgment dated 03.08.2022, rendered by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court in Criminal Appeals No. 15 & 16 of 2017. The appeals concern a land dispute that escalated into a violent altercation resulting in the death of Naheed Fatima. -----Issues: The primary issues revolve around the conviction of the convict-appellant, including murder (Section 302), as well as the sentencing under the principles of 'Diyat' and 'Tazir'. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed the appeal of the convict-appellant, affirming his conviction under Section 302, PPC, and altered the sentence from 14 years' imprisonment to death under Section 302(b), PPC. The Court upheld the conviction for other related offenses under Sections 324, 336, 201, and 203, PPC. The prosecution successfully presented ocular, circumstantial, and corroboratory evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, which established the guilt of the appellant. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif vs. The State, [NLR 2012 Criminal 451] Muhammad Abdullah Khan vs. The State, [2001 SCMR 1775] Zahid Rehman vs. The State, [PLD 2015 SC 77] Syed Kamran Hussain Shah vs. State, [2022 SCR 365]

Summary: (Bail Allowed----The concept of "welfare of minor" is incompatible with jail life. So, instead of detaining the innocent child infant in the jail for the crime allegedly committed by his mother, it would be in the interest of justice as well as welfare of minor if the mother is released from the jail) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that husband of the petitioner namely Barkat Ali went missing on 18.05.2022. The petitioner reported the matter to the Police on 24.05.2022 vide Naqalmad No. 8. Thereafter, the local police initiated an inquiry wherein it transpired that on 19.05.2022, the local police of Police Station Nizampur found an unknown burnt dead body, which was buried in graveyard of Akora Khattak. The same Criminal Petition No. 1267/2022 -: 2 :- was identified by Asghar Ali, brother of the deceased. On 03.06.2022, said Asghar Ali got recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C wherein he stated that his brother has been done to death by Noor Zaman and Hassan Dar on the instigation/abetment of the petitioner. Thereafter, the formal FIR was lodged in the instant case. The court stated that Perusal of Section 107 PPC reveals that three ingredients are essential to dub any person as conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid qua the act or omission for the purpose of completion of abetment. All the three ingredients of Section 107 PPC are prima facie missing in this case. The court also stated that In Mst. Nusrat Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 973) this Court has candidly held that ?the suckling child of the petitioner kept in jail is undoubtedly innocent. He is kept in jail with mother obviously for his welfare. The concept of "welfare of minor" is incompatible with jail life. So, instead of detaining the innocent child infant in the jail for the crime allegedly committed by his mother, it would be in the interest of justice as well as welfare of minor if the mother is released from the jail.? The court also stated that the principal accused namely Hassan Dar has been granted post-arrest bail by the learned High Court. We are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is even at better footing as compared to the said accused. In this view of the matter, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment to be meted out. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9), Muhammad Ajmal Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 274) & Muhammad Usman Shakir Vs. The State (2021 SCMR 1880). The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than five months. Petition converted into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the impugned order.

Summary: Identification of an accused is a two-step process. First, the suspect undergoes a test identification parade and second, the credibility of the eye-witness is assessed by weighing the evidence in the light of the estimator variables. A non-exhaustive list of "estimator variables" negatively affecting the memory process includes stress, weapon focus, duration, distance and lighting, characteristics of witness and perpetrator.

Summary: Identification of an accused is a two-step process. First, the suspect undergoes a test identification parade and second, the credibility of the eye-witness is assessed by weighing the evidence in the light of the estimator variables. A non-exhaustive list of "estimator variables" negatively affecting the memory process includes stress, weapon focus, duration, distance and lighting, characteristics of witness and perpetrator.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 200, 203, 435 & 439---Private complaint, dismissal of---Revision against order of Judicial Magistrate---Maintainability---Procedure---Held, order having been passed under S.203, Cr.P.C., whereby direct complaint had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate without framing a charge and trial, it could not be treated as acquittal of the accused/respondents---Order under S.203 Cr.P.C, being an order passed by a court inferior to the Court of Session, the propriety demanded that the same should first be examined by the Sessions Judge for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the said order passed by the Magistrate who was covered by the explanation given at the bottom of S.435, Cr.P.C.---Revision before the High Court being without exhausting the remedy available to the applicant was not maintainable---Matter was sent to the Sessions Judge for a just and fair decision on the grievance of the applicant---Revision application was thus disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Accordingly, while exercising inherent jurisdictionvested in this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, Article 199and 203 of the Constitution, and in order to prevent the abuse ofthe process of law, we hereby set-side the impugned order, andquash the proceedings against the petitioner, namely, Wali 26Muhammad Shaikh, in the aforesaid FIR, and also direct thePresiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh atKarachi, to record the prosecution witnesses, and conclude thetrial in respect of remaining accused persons, preferably, withina period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of thisorder, which shall be sent by the Office to the trial Court withinone week for compliance.

Summary: It is settled proposition of law that no limitation is provided in criminal law for lodging of a complaint.---In the State case, learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under sections 302, 34 P.P.C., against the accused.---The petitioner-complainant preferred an application for summoning the respondents No.1 & 2 as accused, which was dismissed. The petitioner-complainant concealed this fact in his private complaint as well as he did not narrate this fact in his cursory statement recorded in the court. It is notable that petitioner-complainant had not moved application for summoning of respondent No.3-Munawar Hussain as accused in the State case which also creates doubt in genuineness of allegations levelled by the petitioner-complainant in the private complaint. Criminal Revision dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 299 to 338---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Offences against human body---Provisions of Ss. 299 to 338, Penal Code, dealing with offences against human body, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as they: (a) do not provide for Qisas in cases of Qatl-al-Amd (deliberate murder) and Jurh-al-Amd (deliberate hurt) as prescribed by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah; (b) lack provision for Diyat in cases of Shibh-ul-Amd and Khata for both murder and hurt; (c) do not recognize Sulh (compromise) between parties based on agreed compensation in cases of Qatl and Jurh; (d) fail to allow the offender to be pardoned by the victim or heirs in cases of Jurh or Qatl, respectively; (e) do not exempt non-pubert or insane offenders from the death penalty in murder cases; (f) do not define distinct categories of Qatl and Jurh with their prescribed punishments according to Islamic injunctions. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision of S. 109, making abettors liable to the same punishment as the principal offender regardless of varying degrees of abetment, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 54, Ss. 401-402-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions empowering the Central or Provincial Governments to commute the death sentence in cases of Qatl-al-Amd or Jurh-ul-Amd are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, as they violate Huqooq-ul-Ibad (rights of individuals). (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision restricting the composition of offences to specified offences against the person, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 381---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Failure to allow heirs of a murder victim to pardon the offender or enter into a compromise, even at the last moment before execution, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 337 to 339-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions allowing tender of pardon to an offender without consulting the victim or heirs of the victim in cases of Qatl or Jurh, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (g) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----S. 133---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Art. 16---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Section 133 of the Evidence Act, prescribing conditions for using uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, is no longer applicable due to its repeal by the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. ------ Disposition: The provisions declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions shall cease to have effect from 23rd March 1990. Appeals relating to personal grievances dismissed or referred to appropriate forums. Remaining appeals partially allowed as per findings on specific provisions.