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: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Murder of minor child by alleged poisoning---Evidence of chance witnesses---Requirement of cautious scrutiny---Prosecution alleged that petitioner administered poisonous substance to his four-year-old son, who later died due to insecticide poisoning---Two alleged eyewitnesses, namely complainant and his cousin, claimed presence at house of petitioner’s wife at time of occurrence---Supreme Court held that both witnesses were chance witnesses as, in ordinary course, they were not expected to be present at place of occurrence and failed to disclose any plausible reason for visiting house of Mst. Sumaya at relevant time---Evidence of chance witness requires cautious and deeper scrutiny and such witness must satisfactorily explain his presence at crime spot, supported by strong independent circumstances---In absence of plausible and convincing explanation, evidence of such witness is looked upon with suspicion. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Chance witnesses---Contradictions and unnatural conduct---Effect---Alleged chance witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding time and manner of arrival at house of Mst. Sumaya, whether they travelled on one or two motorcycles, time taken to reach the house, time of departure from their houses, and meeting prior to visit---Both witnesses admitted that they did not enter room from where petitioner allegedly brought glass containing poisonous substance---Supreme Court held that such omission was inconsistent with natural human conduct, as persons present would ordinarily examine utensil or glass from which child consumed something and inspect room from where suspicious substance was allegedly fetched---Their complete inaction, contradictions regarding cot and other material particulars, and discrepancy about colour of clothes of deceased rendered their presence doubtful and their version contrary to normal human behaviour. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Delay in lodging FIR---Unexplained delay despite presence of alleged eyewitnesses---Effect---Incident allegedly occurred at about 10:30 a.m.; police official reached hospital at about 1450 hours after receiving information regarding death of child, but FIR was lodged at 2335 hours at police station---Supreme Court held that if alleged eyewitnesses were present at hospital, normal and expected conduct was to immediately report occurrence without loss of time---Unexplained delay in lodging FIR, when considered with other infirmities, created serious doubt regarding prosecution version. (d) Criminal trial---- ----Improvements in testimony---Recovery of steel glass---Effect---Alleged eyewitnesses made material improvement before Court by stating that poison had been administered through a steel glass, apparently to bring their testimony in conformity with subsequent recovery of steel glass allegedly at instance of petitioner---Confrontation with earlier statements showed that such detail was not mentioned therein---Supreme Court held that such dishonest improvement further weakened credibility of witnesses and contributed to serious doubt about their presence at place of occurrence. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Poisoning of minor---Testimony of mother of deceased---Admissions supporting alternate hypothesis of accidental ingestion---Mother of minor deceased was naturally present in house, but her cross-examination materially affected prosecution case---She admitted that petitioner’s mother and four brothers were also present in house at time of occurrence, a fact not mentioned by alleged eyewitnesses---She further admitted that family was engaged in agricultural activities and pesticide poison was ordinarily kept in house for spraying cotton crops during month of August---Medical officer conceded that a four-year-old child could consume poison on his own by mistaking it for drink and that a child of such tender age could not differentiate between harmful substance and potable liquid---Supreme Court held that medical opinion provided a plausible hypothesis consistent with innocence and possibility of accidental ingestion could not be excluded. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Motive---Allegation that father poisoned his own minor son---Absence of motive and inherent improbability---Petitioner was biological father of deceased minor and had been living with him since birth---Supreme Court observed that in societal and moral framework father is regarded as natural protector, guardian and well-wisher of his children, and relationship of parent and child is founded upon affection, protection and sacrifice---In absence of compelling evidence of strained relations, denial of paternity, grave motive, enmity between spouses, or any circumstance justifying such extreme act, it was wholly unnatural to presume that father would administer poison to his own minor son, particularly in presence of relatives---Prosecution story appeared inherently improbable and against human conduct. (g) Criminal trial---- ----Benefit of doubt---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt---Accused entitled to acquittal as of right---Supreme Court held that prosecution evidence was fraught with material contradictions, improvements, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, absence of motive, and medical opinion consistent with accidental ingestion---Cumulative effect of such circumstances created reasonable doubt in prosecution case---If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in mind of prudent person regarding guilt of accused, accused is entitled to benefit thereof not as matter of grace or concession but as matter of right---Courts below overlooked material infirmities and failed to appreciate evidence in its true perspective. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)---Conviction and death sentence---Evidence not confidence-inspiring---Petitioner was convicted by Trial Court under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death as Ta’zir with compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C.; High Court maintained conviction and sentence and confirmed murder reference---Supreme Court, upon independent reappraisal of entire evidence, found prosecution case doubtful due to unreliable chance witnesses, material contradictions, unnatural conduct, unexplained delay, absence of motive and possibility of accidental ingestion---Conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Disposition: Jail Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner under S.302(b), P.P.C. were set aside; petitioner was acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

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

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860— ----Ss. 302(b), 34—Qanun-e-Shahadat / criminal jurisprudence—Ocular account—Chance witnesses—Credibility—Standard— Conviction for murder was founded mainly on ocular testimony of complainant (father) and another witness (uncle) who claimed to have seen the incident at a location where neither had residence nor property—Supreme Court held that such witnesses fell in the category of chance witnesses, requiring a natural, plausible and confidence-inspiring explanation for presence—Neither witness explained presence in FIR or examination-in-chief; justification (going to buy a buffalo and returning) surfaced for the first time in cross-examination, treated as belated improvement—Unnatural coincidence of reaching the spot exactly when the assailants allegedly arrived further dented credibility—Where presence becomes doubtful, testimony becomes unsafe for reliance—Ocular account held unreliable. (b) Criminal trial—Appreciation of evidence—Material contradictions—Effect— Supreme Court noted glaring contradictions between alleged eyewitnesses on (i) departure time, (ii) distance of village Beharri from occurrence spot, (iii) duration of stay at seller’s house, (iv) whether buffalo had a calf, (v) timing of reaching seller’s house, (vi) availability of hiding place at spot, and (vii) sequence/timing of police arrival, shifting of dead body and post-mortem—Such inconsistencies struck at root of presence and veracity—Alleged seller (Yameen) was neither associated in investigation nor produced to corroborate claimed purpose—Cumulative effect created serious doubt about presence; witnesses held procured/introduced after occurrence. (c) Criminal jurisprudence—Unnatural conduct—Stereotyped role assignment in firearm cases— Witnesses gave minute, segmented attribution of each shot to each accused and corresponding body part injuries—Court held such narration humanly improbable given speed/velocity of firearms and ordinary human reaction (especially father witnessing son’s murder)—Observed recurring pattern of stereotyped accounts in murder FIRs/ocular statements assigning precise shot-by-shot roles to rope in multiple accused—Such conduct reinforced conclusion of deliberation and unreliable ocular account. (d) Circumstantial evidence—Recoveries/forensics—Corroborative nature—Delay—Non-corroboration— Prosecution alleged different weapons (.7mm rifle, .44 rifle, .30 pistol) with distinct firing roles—However, spot recoveries comprised only five empties, one missed bullet and two bullets of .44 bore—No .30 bore empty recovered from alleged position of one accused; no .7mm empties recovered despite assigned role—PFSA report showed empties fired from two weapons, and High Court had treated recovery as inconsequential due to unexplained delay in dispatch—Supreme Court endorsed principles that forensic/recovery evidence is corroborative, meant to support trustworthy ocular account, and cannot by itself sustain conviction where direct evidence is unreliable. (e) Medical evidence—Supporting value only—Non-identification of assailant— Medical evidence did not align with the specific injury attribution advanced by alleged eyewitnesses—Court reiterated settled law that medical evidence may confirm nature/time/weapon-type but cannot identify assailant and cannot repair fundamentally unreliable ocular evidence. Cited Cases (medical evidence principle): Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103) Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah v. The State (2009 SCMR 1410) (f) Criminal jurisprudence—Benefit of doubt—Right, not concession— Where prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and lack of trustworthy corroboration, even one reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles accused to acquittal as a matter of right—Principle applied: “better that ten guilty be acquitted than one innocent be convicted.” Disposition: Criminal Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case. Complainant’s petition for enhancement of sentence dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 419, 421, 422 & 423---Criminal appeal---Scope and duty of appellate court---Even where conviction not expressly challenged and prayer confined to reduction of sentence, appellate court under S.423 is duty-bound to independently peruse entire record and adjudicate appeal on merits---Appellate jurisdiction not a mechanical exercise dependent upon concessions or strategy of counsel---Liberty of citizen cannot be compromised on account of omission or concession by defence counsel---High Court required to satisfy itself regarding legality of conviction notwithstanding limited prayer---Principle reaffirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 423---Powers of appellate court---Phrase “after perusing such record”---Mandatory judicial obligation---Appellate court must apply independent judicial mind to evidence and law---Failure to examine record renders appellate adjudication legally vulnerable---Administration of criminal justice cannot hinge upon tactical choices of parties---Principle reiterated. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c)---Standard of proof---Stringent penal statute---Prosecution required to prove charge beyond shadow of doubt---Evidence must be confidence-inspiring, consistent and free from material discrepancies---Courts below failed to appreciate evidence in proper legal perspective---Conviction recorded on infirm and unreliable evidence held unsustainable. (d) Criminal trial ----Recovery of narcotics---Material contradiction in weight of recovered contraband---Prosecution alleged recovery of twelve packets each weighing 1200 grams totalling 12 kilograms---On de-sealing and weighing before court, total weight found significantly lesser---Individual packet weights inconsistent with prosecution version---Discrepancy struck at root of prosecution case---Benefit of doubt accrued to accused. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Roznamcha entries---Safe custody of case property---Moharrir admitted no roznamcha entry regarding receipt of narcotics---Roznamcha entry failed to mention recovered charas---Chain of custody not established---Procedural lapse materially affecting prosecution case. (f) Evidence appreciation ----Contradictions---Colour and description of recovered substance---Witness described substance as brown whereas produced material was black---Seizing officer failed to describe nature and appearance of narcotics in FIR and recovery memo---Inconsistencies created serious doubt regarding genuineness of recovery. (g) Criminal trial ----Failure to collect best available evidence---CCTV footage---Accused alleged false implication and unlawful detention---Installation of CCTV cameras at police station admitted---Investigating Officer failed to secure or produce footage---Withholding of best evidence attracted adverse inference against prosecution. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Even single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Prosecution case riddled with contradictions, discrepancies and procedural lapses---Courts below erred in sustaining conviction---Accused entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession. Cited cases: • Murad Baloch alias Michel v. State 2011 SCMR 1417 • Shahab Khan v. State 1997 SCMR 871 • Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman NAB and others 2004 SCMR 01 Disposition: Criminal petition converted into appeal; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Murder---Ocular account---Medical evidence---Contradiction---Time of death---Where prosecution alleged occurrence at 06:00 p.m., but post-mortem conducted after about 7½ hours showed rigor mortis fully developed---Medical jurisprudence establishes that in a young adult, complete rigor mortis within such short span is implausible in temperate climate---Expert medical evidence fixing death 16–18 hours prior to post-mortem contradicted prosecution timeline---Such inconsistency rendered ocular account unreliable and suggested occurrence was not witnessed in manner alleged---Conviction unsustainable. (b) Criminal trial ----Benefit of doubt---Standard of proof---Where medical evidence completely belies ocular version as to time of occurrence---Presence of prosecution witnesses at scene becomes doubtful---Occurrence treated as unseen---Benefit of doubt must go to accused---Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to acquit. (c) Evidence ----Interested witnesses---Contradictions and improvements---Eyewitnesses closely related to deceased---Material contradictions regarding transport of dead body, lodging of FIR, and alleged robbery---Improvements in testimony not mentioned in FIR---Conduct of witnesses unnatural---Failure to resist or raise hue and cry despite murder of close relative---Such infirmities further weaken prosecution case. (d) Criminal investigation ----Delay---Post-mortem---Unexplained delay of about 7½ hours despite short distance between place of occurrence and police station---Non-recovery of crime weapon---Absence of forensic corroboration---Motive not proved---Cumulative effect of deficiencies created serious doubt about prosecution story. (e) Criminal jurisprudence ----Appellate interference---Where findings of courts below based on misreading of medical evidence and overlooking glaring contradictions---Supreme Court justified in reappraisal---Conviction set aside. Cited cases: • Noor Ahmad v. The State and others, 2019 SCMR 1327 • Asad Rehmat v. The State and others, 2019 SCMR 1156 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal; appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 04.03.2022 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), PPC; petitioner ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 295-C—Blasphemy—Mens rea—Mental disorder—Benefit of doubt—Held, conviction under S. 295-C being penal and capital requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both actus reus and mens rea—Medical Board (constituted per Supreme Court directions) diagnosed the appellant with Bipolar Affective Disorder, with contemporaneous symptoms of hypomania, grandiose/paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations; the contents of the impugned letters themselves reflected delusional grandeur and flight of ideas—Medical opinion created a serious doubt regarding the existence of criminal intent at the relevant time; such doubt must go to the accused—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Criminal law—Mental illness & criminal responsibility ----Safia Bano’s case applied—Constitution of Medical Board—Diagnosis and retrospective assessment—Where an accredited Board opined that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused likely acted under delusional beliefs/hallucinations consistent with Bipolar Affective Disorder, the presumption of sanity is rebutted sufficiently to raise reasonable doubt as to mens rea—Benefit of doubt extended; capital conviction cannot stand. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 243 & 342—Plea of guilty/statement of accused—Prosecution’s burden—Even where an accused pleads guilty or admits authorship of a document, the prosecution’s duty to prove all ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt persists—Failure to secure timely psychiatric evaluation; complainant SHO and investigating officer did not testify; proof that letters were communicated to copied recipients lacking—Prosecution shortcomings reinforced the doubt already raised by medical evidence. (d) Religious freedom / Evidentiary context ----Propagating own faith—Limits—Council of Islamic Ideology (interim report) noted that all faiths may be professed/practised/propagated subject to law and without encroaching others’ beliefs—On the facts, the letters were suffused with delusional assertions (e.g., claims to kingship of Israel, prophetic self-identification), corroborating the medical finding of disorder and undermining culpable intent rather than proving deliberate transgression. (e) Prisoners—Health care ----Treatment continuity—Appellant (over 74 years; incarcerated ~23 years, mostly on death row) had shown improvement on medication; Executive Director, Punjab Institute of Mental Health, directed to ensure treatment is not discontinued. Held: Medical Board’s diagnosis and the letters’ content created reasonable doubt as to mens rea for S. 295-C; prosecution otherwise failed to dispel doubt. Benefit of doubt extended; convictions of the Trial Court (18.07.2002) and High Court (30.06.2014) set aside. Appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; psychiatric treatment to continue. Cited Cases: • Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab & others, PLD 2021 SC 488. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and released, treatment to continue.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ----Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471 & 34, PPC; S. 5(2), PCA—Embezzlement of departmental funds—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt. Convictions of postal officials for alleged embezzlement of Rs.14,931,650/- set aside—On appraisal of record, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; material infirmities and contradictions in the inquiry and investigation rendered the case doubtful—Benefit of doubt extended; acquittal recorded. (b) Criminal trial—Best evidence rule—Withholding of vital evidence—Adverse inference. Department and FIA failed to produce CCTV footage from the treasury room; inquiry officers admitted footage was not obtained or made part of record, and investigating officer neither seized the system nor recorded statements to prove it was inoperative—Non-production of the best available evidence undermined the prosecution case and invited adverse inference. (c) Departmental proceedings—Procedural irregularities—Denial of fair opportunity. Fact-finding inquiry initiated 2–3 months after the incident; witnesses examined in the absence of accused; no statement of allegations served; accused were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses; inquiry members unable to identify governing rules in Post Office Manual—Such irregularities eroded the probative worth of the departmental findings relied upon for criminal prosecution. (d) Evidence—Missing necessary accused—Break in chain of liability. Record showed MR handed Rs.15,000,000/- to Javed Akhtar Bhatti (Deputy Senior Postmaster) for deposit in SBP; preliminary report also noted non-deposit by JAB on relevant dates—Yet JAB was neither arrayed as an accused nor effectively investigated; even his alleged confessional statement was not brought on record—Failure to investigate/arraign the pivotal custodian of the cash created a decisive gap in prosecution’s chain. (e) Documentary/arithmetical anomalies—Cash verification and forms. Physical cash verification was conducted after two months; the treasury form contained facially erroneous denominations (showing “five lac” notes of Rs.5,000/- leading to an impossible total), further casting doubt on the reliability of the accounting trail. (f) Circumstantial and corroborative evidence—Personal bank accounts. Bank managers’ statements reflected negligible balances in accuseds’ personal accounts; absence of unexplained accretions weakened the allegation of personal appropriation of the missing funds. (g) Appellate review—Concurrent findings—Non-reading/misreading. Despite concurrent convictions by the Trial Court and High Court, Supreme Court interfered where critical evidence was ignored, vital witnesses/evidence were withheld, and material irregularities existed—Convictions could not stand on such tainted footing. Disposition—Both Criminal Petitions allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court (27.06.2019) and affirmed by the High Court (23.01.2023) set aside; petitioners acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Conviction and sentence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Petitioner was convicted under S.302(b) PPC for murder of complainant’s father and sentenced to death by Trial Court; Lahore High Court maintained conviction but reduced sentence to life imprisonment---Supreme Court, upon reappraisal of record, found prosecution case fraught with material doubts---FIR lodged with unexplained delay despite proximity of police station; presence of alleged eyewitnesses held doubtful as they were “chance witnesses” whose presence at crime scene remained unsubstantiated---Motive found vague, stale, and unproved---Prosecution’s reliance on recoveries unavailing as no crime-empty was recovered, weapon not sent to forensic laboratory, and no ballistic linkage established---Recovery of pistol and motorcycle also doubtful due to absence of independent witnesses and unsecured site. (b) Criminal trial---Evidence---Chance witness---Value of testimony---Principle restated that testimony of a chance witness requires convincing explanation of presence at crime scene, failing which it is treated as suspect evidence requiring cautious scrutiny---Relied upon *Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez* (2015 SCMR 1142). (c) Criminal trial---Recovery evidence---Non-production of forensic report---Effect---Where weapon allegedly recovered not sent to PFSA/FSL and no crime-empty recovered from scene, recovery loses evidentiary value and cannot connect accused to offence. (d) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Principle reaffirmed that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in prosecution case, accused entitled to acquittal as of right and not as concession---Relied upon *Muhammad Hassan v. The State* (2024 SCMR 1427); *Tariq Parvez v. The State* (1995 SCMR 1345); *Muhammad Akram v. The State* (2009 SCMR 230); *Muhammad Imran v. The State* (2020 SCMR 857). (e) Disposition— Conviction and sentence set aside---Petitioner Muhammad Aslam acquitted of charge under S.302(b) PPC by extending benefit of doubt---Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case---Jail Petition allowed.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 302(b) & S. 452, read with S. 374, Cr.P.C. Conviction on indivisible, tainted evidence where co-accused with identical role stood acquitted—Rule of consistency—Held, on the same set of prosecution evidence disbelieved qua co-accused Asghar (attributed a head blow with an axe greater in dimension than that ascribed to the appellant), the courts below could not, without cogent distinction or independent corroboration, maintain appellant’s conviction under S. 302(b), PPC; conviction under S. 452 had already been set aside by the High Court—Findings of acquittal of co-accused having attained finality, parity in treatment was required—Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC set aside. (b) Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding of best evidence—Adverse inference. Two closely-related female eyewitnesses (named later as injured) were abandoned without justification; their absence, coupled with unexplained late medical examination of PW-7, warranted an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) against the prosecution version—Prosecution thus failed to produce the best available evidence, creating serious doubt in its case. (c) Criminal trial—Unnatural conduct—Presence of witness doubtful—Benefit of doubt. Complainant-father, claiming to have witnessed armed assailants drag his son out and inflict fatal head injuries, neither intervened nor suffered any injury—Such passivity was found inconsistent with ordinary human conduct; presence held doubtful—Where presence of a star witness is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (d) Criminal trial—Motive—Failure to prove. Alleged motive based on prior FIR by the deceased against the accused was expressly disbelieved by the courts below; with motive out of the case and no other reliable corroboration, prosecution case further weakened. (e) Criminal trial—Recovery—Inconsequential recovery. Recovery of hatchet on appellant’s pointation held devoid of evidentiary value as the weapon was unstained with blood; such recovery could not provide the missing corroboration. (f) Criminal trial—“Sifting the grain from the chaff”—Limits—“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” Court reaffirmed that while rigid application of “falsus in uno…” is eschewed, selective reliance (sifting) must be sparing and only where the truthful part is clearly distinguishable and independently corroborated—It cannot be used to salvage a conviction from the same inseparable, discredited evidence already rejected for identically-placed co-accused, nor to compensate for investigative or prosecutorial lapses—Standard of proof must remain beyond reasonable doubt. 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 • Sher Afzal v. The State, Crim. Apps. No. 229 & 230 of 2021 (25.02.2025). Disposition—Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC set aside; appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case—Connected Criminal Petition for enhancement dismissed as infructuous.