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) ----S. 302(b) read with Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)—Homicide—Absence of post-mortem / death certificate—Effect. Prosecution proved that the accused (petitioner) fired upon the victim causing three firearm injuries (right neck, right chest, right arm). However, no post-mortem was conducted, no Medical Officer deposed to the cause/date of death, and even the death certificate was withheld. Adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO was drawn against the prosecution for suppressing the best evidence. In such circumstances, conviction for murder under S. 302(b) PPC could not be sustained merely on presumptions or probabilities that the injuries resulted in death. Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan (PLD 2006 SC 538), and Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) relied upon; principle that conjectures/probabilities cannot replace proof reiterated. Further reliance on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) as to withholding of material evidence; and Gul Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 381) that external examination is not a substitute for post-mortem where cause of death is in issue. (b) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt—Standard of proof—Scope. Where a single material infirmity (non-production of mandatory medical evidence of death) creates reasonable doubt about the charge of homicide, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Prosecution’s burden to prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt does not shift to the accused. Ghulam Qadir (2008 SCMR 1221), Naveed Asghar (PLD 2021 SC 600) reaffirmed. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 324 & 337-L(i)—Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd—Causing hurt by firearm—Proof and sentencing. Ocular account of natural witnesses (PW-1 complainant and PW-2 paternal uncle) was confidence-inspiring; occurrence was promptly reported (FIR within ~2 hours; distance 7/8 km); medical evidence (PW-5) noted three firearm injuries; recovery of TT pistol at accused’s pointation with positive FSL corroboration (Exh. P/6-G). Even though motive remained unproved, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused firearm injuries on vital parts, attracting S. 324 PPC. In absence of declared nature of hurt by the Medical Officer, S. 337-L(i) PPC was also attracted. (d) Evidence—Ocular, medical and corroborative ----Prompt FIR—Natural presence—Weapon recovery—Forensic corroboration. House-occurrence; presence of inmate PW-1 and close-by PW-2 held natural; cross-examination did not shake their testimony. Prompt FIR added assurance. Recovery of weapon and positive FSL provided independent corroboration of the prosecution’s ocular account regarding causing injuries. Cited Cases: • Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) • Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846) • Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146) • Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224) • Gul Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 381) • Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) • Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) • Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan (PLD 2006 SC 538) • Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b) PPC set aside. Appellant convicted under S. 324 PPC and sentenced to 10 years’ RI with fine Rs. 50,000 (SI 6 months in default). Appellant further convicted under S. 337-L(i) PPC and sentenced to 7 years’ RI with Daman Rs. 100,000 payable to legal heirs (non-payment to be dealt with per S. 337-Y(2) PPC). Compensation under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. as ordered by Trial Court and upheld by High Court maintained. Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended.

Summary: Maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b) — Sentence—Mitigating circumstances—Reduction from death to life imprisonment—Scope Petitioners were convicted for the murders of Ghulam Habib and Ghulam Dastagir in a retaliatory attack near court premises—Conviction upheld by Trial Court and High Court—Supreme Court observed that incident stemmed from deep-rooted enmity and vendetta rather than cold-blooded premeditation—Held, even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant lesser punishment—Death sentence converted to life imprisonment under S. 302(b) PPC on two counts, to run concurrently with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. Cited case: Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. The State (2014 SCMR 1034). (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) ---- S. 7(a)—Terrorism—Determination—Personal motive versus public impact Petitioners were also convicted under S. 7(a) ATA by the Trial Court, but the High Court acquitted them of terrorism charges—Held, act of personal vengeance, though brutal and conducted in a public space, did not meet the statutory threshold of terrorism under ATA—No intent to terrorize the public or destabilize law and order—ATA charges rightly set aside. Principle reaffirmed: Mere occurrence in public or near court premises does not automatically invoke S. 7 ATA without requisite mens rea. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 374—Reference for confirmation of death sentence—Concurrent findings—Scope of interference by Supreme Court Trial Court awarded death penalty; High Court upheld convictions under PPC while setting aside ATA conviction—Upon independent appraisal of ocular and medical evidence, the Supreme Court found no material discrepancies—Held, concurrent findings supported by credible eyewitnesses and forensic corroboration do not warrant reversal—However, sentence can be modified in presence of mitigating factors. Cited principle: Concurrent findings may be maintained with variation in sentence based on judicial discretion. (d) Criminal trial ---- Ocular evidence—Testimony of related and independent witnesses—Corroboration by medical and forensic evidence Four eyewitnesses, including two private individuals and two police officials, gave consistent ocular account—Real brother of deceased and family friend among witnesses—Their testimony was corroborated by medical reports and PFSA forensic analysis—Crime weapons recovered from petitioners—Held, evidence was reliable, trustworthy, and proved the case against petitioners beyond doubt. Principle reaffirmed: Relationship of witnesses to deceased not sufficient ground to discard testimony if otherwise credible and corroborated. (e) Criminal law ---- Motive—Revenge and prior enmity—Effect on sentencing Incident was a product of long-standing blood feud involving multiple cross FIRs and prior murders—Held, though motive of revenge was established, its existence served as a mitigating factor impacting quantum of sentence, not a ground for acquittal—In such cases, life imprisonment may serve ends of justice. Cited precedent: Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. The State (2014 SCMR 1034). Disposition: Leave to appeal granted—Appeal partly allowed—Conviction under S. 302(b) PPC maintained—Death sentences converted to life imprisonment on two counts to run concurrently—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended—Conviction under S. 7(a) ATA already set aside by High Court upheld.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)––S. 302(b)––Murder of minor––Circumstantial evidence––Last seen, confessional statement, recovery, and medical evidence––Unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances––Conviction maintained–– Appellant was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. for the rape and murder of a 5½-year-old girl. While no direct eyewitness account was available, conviction was based on circumstantial evidence forming a coherent and unbroken chain leading to the guilt of the accused. Evidence included: (i) last seen testimony of PW-2 who saw the appellant with the deceased; (ii) judicial confessional statement made under S. 164, Cr.P.C.; (iii) recovery of the deceased's dopatta at the appellant’s instance; and (iv) medical evidence confirming homicidal asphyxia consistent with the confession. The Court held that such circumstantial evidence, if cogent and consistent, could support a conviction even in a capital case. Cited cases: Munawar Hussain v. Imran Waseem 2013 SCMR 374; Manjeet Singh v. The State PLD 2006 SC 30. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)––S. 376––Rape––Confessional statement lacking unequivocal admission––Medical evidence inconsistent––Conviction set aside–– High Court rightly acquitted the appellant under S. 376, P.P.C. after finding that his judicial confession did not clearly mention the act of rape in unequivocal terms, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s claim of sexual assault. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, holding that courts may accept parts of a confessional statement that are corroborated by independent evidence and reject parts that are unsupported. Cited cases: Manjeet Singh v. The State PLD 2006 SC 30. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)––S. 164––Confessional statement––Voluntariness––Retracted confession––Legal test––Reliability–– The confessional statement of the appellant recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. was held to be voluntary, truthful, and recorded in compliance with all legal safeguards. The Magistrate ensured proper reflection time and recorded the confession without coercion. Although the confession was later retracted, it remained admissible and formed a key piece of evidence when corroborated by other circumstances. Cited cases: Manjeet Singh v. The State PLD 2006 SC 30. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984––Art. 40––Recovery on pointation of accused––Corroborative evidence––Admissibility–– Recovery of the dopatta of the deceased from an abandoned house on the pointation of the appellant was admissible under Art. 40, QSO 1984, and formed a corroborative link with the confessional statement and the prosecution’s version. Witnessed by PW-3 and conducted by PW-7, the recovery further reinforced the reliability of the circumstantial chain. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)––S. 544-A––Compensation––Conviction partially upheld––Compensation order sustained–– The compensation of Rs. 200,000/- awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C., was upheld by the Supreme Court, including the default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment in case of non-payment. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)––S. 382-B––Benefit of set-off––Sentence computation–– The benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant for the time already spent in custody since his arrest on 20.12.2011, during which he remained continuously confined, including in the death cell. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)––S. 302(b)––Sentence––Commutation from death to life imprisonment––Mitigating circumstances––Long incarceration––Minor inconsistencies–– In view of minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence not affecting core reliability, long incarceration of over a decade in death cell, and the High Court’s acquittal of the rape charge under S. 376, PPC, the Supreme Court treated these factors as mitigating. Accordingly, the death sentence under S. 302(b), PPC was commuted to imprisonment for life. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302(b), PPC maintained; sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment. Conviction and sentence under Section 376, PPC set aside. Compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. upheld.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ––S. 9(c), S. 29 –– Possession –– Charas –– Burden of Proof –– Conviction Modified ––Recovery of 21.025 kg of Charas from vehicle intercepted near Motorway Toll Plaza, Islamabad––Trial Court convicted appellant under S. 9(c) CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment––Appellate Court observed serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence regarding safe custody and transmission of samples––Laboratory reports (Ex.PH, Ex.PK, Ex.PL) showed that Constable Imran Ahmed deposited samples, whereas prosecution produced Head Constable Adnan Ali as depositor (PW-2)––Discrepancy held material, as Constable Imran Ahmed was not produced as a witness, nor mentioned in evidence chain––Only Ex.PJ correctly identified Adnan Ali as depositor––Held, prosecution proved recovery and chemical analysis of 5 out of 20 sample parcels, establishing possession of 5 kg Charas––Remaining 15 packets unproven due to broken chain of custody––Conviction under S. 9(c) CNSA modified––Appellant sentenced to 7 years and 6 months R.I., Rs. 35,000/- fine, and 6 months S.I. in default––Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B –– Sentence Reduction –– Chain of Custody –– Investigation Irregularities: ––Appellant contended that investigation was conducted entirely by CIA staff without requisite permission––Court found that permission had been sought on day after FIR via Ex.PG, and verbal intimation noted in Complaint and FIR––Objection overruled––Further objection that seal on case property not legible due to passage of time also dismissed––Court noted that delay of nearly two years between sealing and trial testimony explains fading of seal––Vehicle not exhibited at trial due to superdari fraud by surety––Held, non-exhibition of vehicle immaterial as narcotics were recovered from bag on floor, not hidden compartments––Presumption under S. 29 CNSA applies unless rebutted––Appellant failed to discharge burden––Nonetheless, prosecution’s failure to account for chain of custody in 15 out of 20 samples vitiated life sentence. (c) Chain of Custody –– Evidentiary Deficiency –– Benefit to Accused: ––Court emphasized importance of strict compliance with protocols in narcotics cases––Where chain of custody is broken or unexplained, benefit of doubt must go to accused––Reliance placed on Abdul Ghani v. The State, 2019 SCMR 608; Qaisar Khan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 363; Shah Zameen v. The State, 2022 SCMR 2149; Lal Jan v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1009––Failure to produce material witness (Imran Ahmed) and conflicting evidence on who deposited sample parcels held fatal to prosecution’s case for full quantity––Only evidence relating to five samples (as per Ex.PJ) found reliable. ----Disposition: Appeals partially allowed––Conviction under S. 9(c) CNSA maintained for 5 kg Charas––Sentence reduced to 7 years and 6 months R.I. with Rs. 35,000/- fine––Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended––Default of fine to result in 6 months S.I. Cited Cases: • The State v. Bashir, PLD 1997 SC 408 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State, PLD 2000 SC 816 • Abdul Ghani v. The State, 2019 SCMR 608 • Qaisar Khan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 363 • Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 451 • Shah Zameen v. The State, 2022 SCMR 2149 • Lal Jan v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1009 • Muhammad Hazir v. The State, 2023 SCMR 986 • Asif Ullah v. The State, 2023 YLR 966 • Agha Qais v. The State, 2009 PCr.LJ 1334 • Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State, 1989 PCr.LJ 601 "Section 48 Appeal Against sentence by conviction. FIR No. 754-2020 dated 07.12.2020 Offence U/s 9-C CNSA, PS Tarnol, Islamabad."

Summary: (a) Murder—Sudden Provocation—Reduction of Sentence from Section 302(b) PPC to 302(c) PPC: ---Petitioner Mehboob was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC for killing his sister, Mst. Farhat Bibi, and his relative, Saif Ullah, after finding them in a compromising position—Trial court awarded life imprisonment on two counts under Section 302(b) PPC—High Court upheld the conviction—Supreme Court examined the element of sudden provocation and applied Section 302(c) PPC, reducing the sentence to 14 years of imprisonment—Court noted that the reaction was immediate and spontaneous, falling within the scope of grave and sudden provocation—Reliance placed on State v. Muhammad Hanif (1992 SCMR 2047) and Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad (PLD 1996 SC 274). (b) Evidence—Unimpeachable Witness Testimony—Conviction Upheld: ---Prosecution produced 15 witnesses—Medical evidence, recovery of murder weapon (12-bore shotgun No. 790812), and circumstantial evidence were consistent—Dr. Hina Ayub (PW-3) confirmed findings from the post-mortem examination—Defendant introduced a new defense plea at trial claiming the crime weapon belonged to his father, but this was contradicted by evidence—PW-11 (Allah Ditta, father of deceased Saif Ullah) attempted to alter the incident’s circumstances, but his version was not accepted—Court found no material contradictions in prosecution evidence. (c) FIR and Confession—Petitioner’s Initial Surrender and Later Denial: ---FIR was lodged immediately at the crime scene, and petitioner surrendered with the weapon—Petitioner initially admitted the offense but later denied involvement—Thumb impression was obtained, and the motive was not disputed—Court held that mere denial of the FIR was not sufficient to discredit prosecution’s case. (d) Applicability of Section 302(c) PPC—Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: ---Court analyzed Section 302 PPC, which categorizes Qatl-e-Amd into three punishments: (i) Death as Qisas, (ii) Death or life imprisonment as Ta’zir, (iii) Imprisonment up to 25 years under Section 302(c) PPC where Qisas is not applicable. ---Court found that the provocation was immediate and thus, section 302(c) PPC was applicable—Held that sentence should be adjusted according to the intensity and immediacy of provocation. ----Disposition: ---Appeal converted into a criminal appeal and partly allowed. ---Conviction under Section 302(b) PPC reduced to Section 302(c) PPC. ---Life imprisonment on two counts reduced to 14 years of imprisonment. ---Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. extended to the petitioner. ---Judgment approved for reporting.

Summary: Sentenced reduced ---- (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)----S. 7(a)---Application of anti-terrorism provisions---Requirement of motive, object, or purpose behind an act---Scope---Mere gravity or brutal nature of an offence is not sufficient to bring it under the definition of "terrorism" unless it is designed to intimidate the public, government, or a segment of society---Accused was convicted under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the murder of a police constable, but evidence revealed that the deceased was not in uniform or performing official duty at the time of the incident---Prosecution failed to establish that the act was committed to intimidate the government or the public---Held, that mere killing of a police officer does not automatically constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 unless the requisite intent is proven---Supreme Court deleted S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 from the conviction of the accused.Cited Case:Ghulam Hussain v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b) & S. 302(c)---Murder---Self-defence---Plea of accused---Scope---Accused claimed to have acted in self-defence, arguing that the deceased police constable, not being in uniform, approached him in darkness, causing a reasonable apprehension of an assassination attempt---Evidence established that the deceased grappled with the accused before being shot---Supreme Court held that while the accused had a reasonable apprehension of danger, the extent of force used exceeded the right of self-defence, making it a case of mitigating circumstances rather than complete exoneration---Death sentence under S.302(b) PPC converted into life imprisonment.Cited Cases:Faiz v. The State 1983 SCMR 76Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan PLD 1991 SC 520Shabbir Ahmad v. The State PLD 1995 SC 343(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 342---Statement of accused---Acceptance as a whole---Scope---Statement of accused must be accepted or rejected in its entirety unless independent evidence contradicts the exculpatory portion---Accused's plea of self-defence was supported by circumstantial evidence, including lack of police uniform on the deceased and the absence of light at the scene---Court considered the plea of self-defence in light of mitigating factors and reduced the sentence.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 544-A---Compensation---Quantum of compensation---Scope---Supreme Court reduced the compensation amount payable to legal heirs of the deceased from Rs. 10 Lac to Rs. 2 Lac, considering mitigating circumstances of the case.---- Disposition: Appeal partially allowed. Conviction under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, set aside. Death sentence under S.302(b) PPC converted into life imprisonment. Compensation reduced to Rs. 2 Lac.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an employee of a government corporation, was accused of embezzling Rs. 448,604. He was tried by an Anti-Corruption Court, convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to three years in prison with fines of Rs. 250,000 for each offense. The petitioner appealed the decision to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned the Supreme Court, admitting that he had deposited the embezzled amount in the State exchequer and requesting a reduction in his sentence due to his wife’s illness and other personal hardships. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s repayment of the embezzled amount warrants a reduction in his sentence. -----2- Whether the petitioner’s personal circumstances, such as his wife’s illness, justify leniency in sentencing. -----3- Whether the conviction under Section 409 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, should be upheld. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Reduction of Sentence: The Supreme Court acknowledged that although the petitioner could not claim a reduction of sentence as a matter of right, his repayment of the embezzled amount and his willingness to resolve the matter without further contestation indicated a sincere intention to make amends. Considering the petitioner’s efforts and his personal circumstances, the court decided to reduce his sentence. --Personal Circumstances: The court took into account the petitioner’s family situation, particularly his wife’s serious illness, which required his support. His decision to not further contest the case showed his desire to end the proceedings and return to his family, which was seen as a mitigating factor. --Upholding of Conviction: While the petitioner’s conviction under Section 409 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld, the court reduced the sentences in both offenses to the time already served. Additionally, the fines were significantly reduced from Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 40,000 under Section 409 PPC and from Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 10,000 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was ordered to serve additional short imprisonment terms if he failed to pay the reduced fines. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Penal Code, Section 409 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), Section 382-B

Summary: Sentence reduction ---- Background: The petitioner was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by the Special Judge in Barkhan at Rakhni, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000, with an additional six months of simple imprisonment in case of default. The petitioner appealed the conviction and sentence before the High Court of Balochistan, which upheld the trial court's decision. The petitioner then filed the current petition in the Supreme Court, challenging both the conviction and sentence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was justified given the evidence presented. 2- Whether the method of sampling and testing the narcotic substance adhered to the legal requirements established by the Supreme Court. 3- Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the legal and procedural lapses in the investigation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction Justified: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The evidence demonstrated that the petitioner was in conscious possession of 320 kilograms of charas, and the prosecution proved this through reliable witnesses. However, the Court noted that there were significant procedural lapses in how the samples were handled and tested. --Procedural Lapses: The Court highlighted that only one consolidated sample weighing 3.200 kilograms was tested, rather than separate samples from each of the 320 packets. This method was a clear violation of the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), which mandates that samples be taken from each packet for chemical analysis. As a result, the Court concluded that only 3.200 kilograms of charas could be considered for the purpose of sentencing. --Sentence Reduced: Due to the procedural lapses, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and reduced the petitioner’s sentence to six years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a reduced fine of Rs. 30,000. In default of payment, the petitioner would undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment. The Court also extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed to the extent of the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the petitioner’s sentence was reduced due to the procedural lapses identified in the sampling and testing of the narcotic substance. The Court emphasized the need for proper training and oversight in the investigation and prosecution of narcotics cases in Balochistan, urging immediate reforms. ----Citations/Precedents: Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380)

Summary: Sentence reduced ----Background: The appellant, was charged under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of his grandfather-in-law, Khaista Jan, and the attempted murder of his brother-in-law, Muhammad, at Tehsil Headquarter Hospital (THQ) Sadda on November 25, 2018. The trial concluded with the appellant being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the attempted murder, along with financial penalties. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sahar Gul committed the offenses of murder and attempted murder. 2- Whether the procedural flaws and lack of certain forensic evidence affected the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the absence of premeditation and the nature of the injuries justified a reduction in the severity of the charges and sentences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentencing based on several factors: The occurrence was sudden and without premeditation, which reduced the culpability. The victim sustained a single non-vital injury, indicating a lesser intent to kill. Procedural flaws by the investigating agency were considered but did not significantly undermine the prosecution’s case. The court reappraised the evidence with leniency, recognizing the context of the newly merged legal system of the erstwhile FATA. The court converted the conviction from section 302(b) PPC to section 302(c) PPC, reducing the life imprisonment sentence to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence under section 324 PPC was also reduced from ten years to five years. Financial penalties and the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. were maintained. -----Citations/Precedents: Abdur Rehman vs. The State (1998 SCMR 1778) Importance of postmortem reports in confirming death but not solely determinative. Rahim Ullah vs. The State (NLR 1985 page 41 Peshawar) Absence of postmortem examination not fatal to prosecution. Zard Ullah Khan vs. The State (1998 MLD 858) Conviction possible without postmortem if supported by other evidence. Aqil vs. The State (2023 SCMR 831) Trustworthy ocular evidence can outweigh minor discrepancies in medical evidence. Muhammad Salim vs. Muhammad Aslam and others (1983 SCMR 53) Single injury on a non-vital part indicating lesser culpability. The State vs. Muhammad Hanif and 05 others (1992 SCMR 2047) Matters under section 304 PPC now considered under section 302(c) PPC. Muhammad Aimal vs. The State Occurrence of sudden flare-up considered under section 302(c) PPC due to lack of premeditation. ----Quote: Section: 302/324 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. (i) In case where offences committed during transitional period after merger of erstwhile FATA/PATA, standard of investigation and flaws therein would not have adverse bearing on prosecution case. (ii) Absence of postmortem examination of the deceased would not be fatal for prosecution case being corroborative piece of evidence. (iii) Death due to single stab wound on non-vital part: accused could not be saddled with the knowledge of precise locale of different arteries and veins in the limbs of the deceased. (iv) Conversion of sentence from section 302(b) to 302(c) PPC.