Summary: Sentence upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor---FIR initially lodged against unknown accused---Subsequent nomination through supplementary statement---Effect---Minor girl was abducted from a public place by a person riding a motorcycle---Informant initially lodged FIR against unknown accused and gave description of the culprit and motorcycle used in commission of offence---Petitioner was subsequently nominated when witnesses informed the complainant that they had seen the minor in the company of petitioner shortly after the abduction---Held, that non-nomination of petitioner in the FIR, in the peculiar circumstances, reflected bona fides of the informant---Had there been any ulterior motive, ill-will or previous enmity, the informant could have nominated petitioner at the first instance---Subsequent nomination, on the basis of information received from witnesses, was natural and consistent with ordinary human conduct. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Delay in lodging FIR---Explanation furnished---Effect---FIR was lodged with delay of about six hours---Informant explained that after occurrence he remained engaged in searching for the missing child, informing police and making public announcements for tracing her---Held, that delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained---Conduct of informant was natural in the circumstances and did not adversely affect prosecution case. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen evidence---Independent witness---Minor seen with accused shortly after abduction---Evidentiary value---Witness deposed that shortly after abduction he saw petitioner taking the minor towards his house on motorcycle and later saw petitioner in a disturbed condition carrying a bag on motorcycle---Witness was independent and unrelated to complainant or deceased---No previous enmity, motive or ill-will was elicited during cross-examination---Held, that testimony of last seen witness was consistent, confidence-inspiring and worthy of reliance---Close proximity of time between abduction and deceased being seen with petitioner provided strong corroboration to prosecution case. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery-related circumstance---Dead body recovered from bag---Independent witness---Corroborative value---Witness stated that he saw a bag fall from petitioner’s motorcycle and, when petitioner did not stop, the bag was opened and the dead body of the minor was found therein---Witness was independent and no motive for false implication was established---Held, that such testimony materially corresponded with last seen evidence and provided further assurance to prosecution case---Inter se consistency between independent witnesses strengthened the chain of circumstances against petitioner. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 122---Facts especially within knowledge of accused---Last seen theory---Duty to explain---Scope---Where prosecution established that deceased was last seen alive in company of accused, accused was expected to explain how and when he parted company with deceased---Held, that Art.122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not shift the general burden of proof in criminal trial, which remains upon prosecution---However, where facts are especially within knowledge of accused, failure to offer a plausible explanation may constitute an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence---Petitioner’s failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation further strengthened prosecution case. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen theory---Conviction not to be based solely thereon---Requirement of supporting circumstances---Held, that last seen theory is an important link in the chain of circumstances, but conviction cannot rest solely upon such theory---Court must examine the prosecution case as a whole, including circumstances preceding and following the point when deceased was last seen with accused---In the present case, last seen evidence was supported by independent recovery-related evidence, medical evidence and DNA evidence, forming a complete chain against petitioner. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Medical evidence---Sexual assault and murder of minor---Post-mortem examination and forensic sampling---Effect---Medical officer conducted post-mortem examination and secured necessary samples for chemical and forensic analysis---Medical evidence established that the minor had been subjected to sexual assault and thereafter murdered by smothering---Held, that medical evidence materially supported the prosecution version and corroborated other circumstances relied upon against petitioner. (h) Criminal trial--- ----DNA evidence---Scientific evidence---Identity of accused---Sexual offence---PFSA report---DNA profile obtained from samples secured from deceased was found consistent with DNA profile of petitioner---Held, that DNA evidence, due to its scientific accuracy and conclusiveness, is regarded as a strong corroborative piece of evidence, particularly in cases involving sexual offences---DNA report connected petitioner with commission of offence and strongly corroborated prosecution case. Cited Cases: • Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain • Salman Akram Raja case 2013 SCMR 203 • Atif Zareef and others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 550 (i) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Complete chain---Capital sentence---Standard of proof---Held, that conviction, even in cases involving capital punishment, may be based on circumstantial evidence if circumstances form a complete and unbroken chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence---Each circumstance must be independently proved and must be interlinked with other proved circumstances---In the present case, cumulative effect of last seen evidence, recovery-related circumstance, medical evidence and DNA evidence formed a complete chain consistent only with guilt of petitioner and incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Cited Cases: • Khurshid v. The State PLD 1996 SC 305 • Munawar Hussain v. Imran Waseem 2013 SCMR 374 (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 340(2) & 342---Statement of accused---Bare denial---Failure to appear as witness or produce defence evidence---Effect---Petitioner neither appeared as witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced defence evidence---His statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. was a bare denial---Held, that such bare denial, being not on oath and not subject to cross-examination, did not rebut prosecution evidence after prosecution had established a prima facie case through reliable circumstantial and scientific evidence. (k) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Sentence---Death penalty---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor---No mitigating circumstance---Deterrence---Petitioner abducted a minor girl, subjected her to sexual assault and murdered her---Held, that offences were of extreme brutality and no leniency was warranted---Although accused is favourite child of law, Court also owes duty to society and legal heirs of victim---Sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offence and serve as deterrence---Death sentence awarded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court was maintained. Disposition: Jail petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Convictions and sentences awarded by Trial Court under Ss.302(b), 364-A and 376, P.P.C., and confirmed by Lahore High Court, were maintained.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 376(1), 364, 342 Conviction and sentencing on basis of circumstantial evidence—Admissibility of digital evidence—Murder and sexual assault of deceased female within premises of petitioner’s house—CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and DNA report unerringly linking petitioner to offense—Prosecution established complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence excluding any hypothesis other than guilt of petitioner—Petitioner failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding presence of deceased in his house or her recovery in dead condition—Both courts below found guilt of petitioner fully established—Supreme Court concurred with concurrent findings—Conviction under S. 302(b) PPC maintained; conviction under S. 376(1) PPC maintained but sentence of death converted to life imprisonment; conviction under S. 364 PPC set aside; conviction under S. 342 PPC maintained. (b) Criminal Trial ----Circumstantial evidence—Scope and application—Court held that conviction may be lawfully founded upon circumstantial evidence provided that it is of unimpeachable character and forms a continuous chain connecting the accused with the crime to the exclusion of all other possibilities—Each link must be cogent and complete to reach the only conclusion of guilt—If any link is broken or explanation remains plausible, benefit of doubt must go to accused—Trial and appellate courts found evidence met required standard, Supreme Court upheld conclusion. Reference: State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873. (c) Evidence—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 46-A, 73 (Explanation 3 & 4), 164 Admissibility and evidentiary value of CCTV footage—Silent Witness theory—Technological evidence admissible as primary evidence when properly authenticated—CCTV footage depicting sequence of crime, including physical assault and later recovery of deceased’s body, considered real-time, unbiased proof—Forensic report confirmed footage was unedited and matched facial identity of accused—Supreme Court reiterated that where digital evidence meets authenticity and relevance requirements, it stands on equal footing with direct eyewitness testimony and requires no corroboration. References: R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59; R. v. Atkin [2009] EWCA Crim 1876; R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 SCR 1197; United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976); United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988). (d) Criminal Law—Sentence ----Capital punishment—Mitigation—Petitioner had gruesomely murdered the deceased by decapitation and inflicted further bodily injuries—Relationship with deceased did not mitigate culpability in light of brutal manner of killing—Supreme Court declined to show any sympathy—However, while maintaining conviction under S. 376(1) PPC, sentence of death converted to life imprisonment—Petitioner’s death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC upheld. (e) Co-accused—Benefit of leniency ----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 342—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B Petitions by co-accused (cook and watchman) allowed in part—While maintaining convictions, Supreme Court took lenient view and reduced sentences to imprisonment already undergone—Co-accused ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (f) Criminal Procedure ----Petitions by complainant—Enhancement of sentence and challenge to acquittal—No ground made out for interference—Supreme Court dismissed petitions and refused leave to appeal. Cited Cases: • State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873 • R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59 • R. v. Atkin and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1876 • R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 • United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976) • United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b), 109 & 34—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A & 382-B—Murder of father—Conviction based on testimony of related witnesses—Change of stance and inconsistencies—Unexplained abscondence—Recovery of weapon after delay—Scope of benefit of doubtPetitioner was accused of murdering his father by firing upon him and inflicting stab wounds. The conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of the deceased’s sister (PW-3) and nephew (PW-8), who claimed to have witnessed the incident while returning from a wedding ceremony. Supreme Court held that the credibility of said ocular account was doubtful, as no independent witness was cited despite presence of 100-150 people at the event, and the venue of the marriage was not marked in the site plan. The delay of ten months in recovery of the churi, coupled with absence of evidence regarding its preservation, rendered the forensic report unreliable. The recovery of pistol was returned with a negative FSL report. Court further observed that inflicting both firearm and knife injuries indicated involvement of more than one assailant, but prosecution’s case remained silent on this point. Acquittal of co-accused, previously alleged to be part of a conspiracy, further weakened prosecution’s version. Mere abscondence of accused could not cure defects in the prosecution's case. Supreme Court held that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioner acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.Cited Cases:• Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203• Ali Haider @ Pappu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• Basharat & another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1735• Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566• Muhammad Khan v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220(b) Criminal trial—Ocular evidence—Presence at crime scene not established—Failure to examine independent witnesses—Testimony of related witnesses found unreliableProsecution’s case hinged on testimonies of related witnesses who claimed to have seen the petitioner attacking the deceased. Supreme Court observed that neither the presence of these witnesses at the matrimonial ceremony was proven, nor were independent witnesses examined to corroborate their account. Discrepancies in their statements and contradictions regarding direction of escape of accused created further doubts. The absence of Ahmad Khan, the host of the matrimonial ceremony, or other guests as witnesses, was noted as a serious omission. Court held that when foundational facts are not substantiated, reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is unsafe—Testimonies disbelieved.(c) Forensic evidence—Delayed recovery—Preservation of evidence—Legal and scientific standards—Weight of DNA and serological evidenceCourt reiterated that while forensic reports may have corroborative value, their admissibility and evidentiary weight depend on timely collection and proper preservation. Churi allegedly used in offence was recovered nearly ten months post-incident, with no evidence regarding storage or documentation. Although PFSA returned a positive blood report, Supreme Court held that such belated recovery failed to meet the legal threshold for reliability. Pistol allegedly used was returned with a negative forensic report. The Court placed reliance on precedent highlighting that DNA and forensic tools are only effective if collected and preserved as per proper scientific standards—Evidence deemed untrustworthy due to procedural lapses.Cited Cases:• Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203• Ali Haider @ Pappu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• Basharat & another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1735

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 365-B, 376, 496-B ---- Abduction and rape ---- Essential ingredients ---- Whether the case was of forcible abduction and rape under Ss. 365-B & 376 PPC or zina with consent under S. 496-B PPC ---- Petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court under Ss. 365-B, 376, 109 PPC; High Court maintained their convictions under S. 365-B PPC but acquitted them under S. 376(ii) PPC ---- Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish forcible abduction or rape beyond reasonable doubt ---- Alleged abductee did not raise alarm at the time of abduction despite the presence of family members; no weapons were used; abductee remained in Dar-ul-Aman for over a year without alleging abduction or rape before the Magistrate ---- No marks of violence found on the body of the abductee ---- Held, that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and suffered from material contradictions ---- Convictions under Ss. 365-B & 376 PPC were not sustainable. (b) DNA Evidence ---- Proof of biological paternity ---- Conviction under S. 496-B PPC ---- Prosecution presented DNA test report confirming that petitioner Asif Masih was the biological father of the child born to the abductee ---- Supreme Court held that while rape was not proved, the ingredients of zina with consent under S. 496-B PPC were satisfied ---- Conviction under S. 376(i) PPC was set aside, and Asif Masih was convicted under S. 496-B PPC ---- Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, or in default, three months rigorous imprisonment ---- Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended to the petitioner. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 382-B ---- Benefit of pre-sentence detention ---- Accused entitled to the benefit of pre-sentence detention where conviction was altered from a graver offense to a lesser offense ---- Supreme Court extended the benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. to Asif Masih, adjusting his sentence accordingly. (d) Acquittal ---- Failure to prove abduction beyond reasonable doubt ---- Qasim Iqbal and Sajid Majeed, convicted under S. 365-B PPC, acquitted ---- Prosecution failed to prove that the abductee was forcibly taken away ---- Supreme Court found that the abductee left her house of her own free will and was not coerced into abduction or sexual relations ---- Convictions under S. 365-B PPC set aside ---- Petition converted into an appeal and allowed to the extent of acquittal of Qasim Iqbal and Sajid Majeed. Disposition: Asif Masih: Conviction under S. 376(i) PPC set aside, convicted under S. 496-B PPC, sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Qasim Iqbal & Sajid Majeed: Acquitted from all charges, released from custody unless required in another case.

Summary: Petitioners challenged the order dated 17.10.2022 issued by the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Hafizabad, which directed a DNA analysis of minor to determine paternity between two contesting parties. This order was initially directed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.16871-H of 2022 on 21.03.2022.----Issues:Whether the consent of the parties is necessary for a DNA examination to determine paternity.Whether the trial court can order a DNA test without the consent of the involved parties.The implications of conducting a DNA test on the fundamental rights to liberty and privacy.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court held that the consent of the parties is essential for conducting a DNA examination to determine paternity. The Court noted that previous judgments emphasize the importance of consent to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court also mentioned that in the absence of consent, the trial court can draw an adverse inference as per Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and decide the paternity issue based on the evidence provided by the parties. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 was set aside.----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Nawaz vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 461)Abdul Latif vs. Additional District Judge, Kasur and 4 others (2016 CLC 1553)Mst. Laila Qayyum vs. Fawad Qayyum and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449)Salman Akram Raja and another vs. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, and others (2013 SCMR 203)Mst. Safia Bibi and another vs. Muhammad Akbar and others (PLD 2018 Lahore 758)Mst. Rubina Kausar vs. Additional Sessions Judge and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 604)Naseer Ahmed vs. Mst. Azrah and another (PLD 2010 Karachi 61)Mst. Rajo Mai vs. The State (1992 P Cr. LJ 1011)Islamic Law of Paternity and DNA Evidence by Ayman Shabana (June 28, 2021)----Conclusion: The Lahore High Court emphasized that the DNA testing should only be conducted with the parties' consent. If the consent is not given, the court must rely on the available evidence, including physiognomy (qiy?fah), to resolve paternity disputes. The court's decision ensures the protection of individuals' rights to liberty and privacy, aligning with the principles established in the cited precedents.

Summary: Background:In the case of Amjad Ali versus The State, Amjad Ali, the appellant, was convicted for the rape of Shagufta Parveen. The incident allegedly occurred on November 9, 2016, and the FIR was lodged five days later on November 14, 2016. Amjad was sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the trial court. His conviction was based on the accusation that he lured Shagufta from her school with a false message and then raped her at pistol point, with Shamim Bibi allegedly guarding the door.---Issues:The main issues in this appeal included:1.The validity and reliability of the prosecution's evidence, particularly concerning the presence and role of eyewitnesses.2.The integrity of the forensic evidence, including the DNA and medical tests.3.The timing and circumstances of the FIR's registration and the implications of the delay in reporting the crime.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court found multiple flaws in the prosecution's case, leading to doubts about the guilt of the accused. Significant concerns included:The delay in lodging the FIR, which was not satisfactorily explained, leading to potential suspicion of fabrication or manipulation of the case.Inconsistencies regarding the presence and role of Shamim Bibi and discrepancies in witness accounts concerning the scene of the crime.The medical evidence did not convincingly support the claim of rape occurring under the described circumstances. The medical report indicated an "old healed" rupture of the hymen, which was inconsistent with the alleged timeline of the assault.DNA evidence did not support the presence of seminal material, further weakening the prosecution's case.Given these considerations, the court acquitted Amjad Ali, citing the benefit of the doubt principle. The court emphasized that even a single doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to his acquittal.---Citations/Precedents:Farman Ahmad vs. Muhammad Inayat and others (2007 SCMR 1825) - Addressed the implications of delays in FIR registration.Najaf Ali Shah vs. The State (2021 SCMR 736) - Discussed the principle of the benefit of the doubt.Chandran vs State of Kerala - Related to medical jurisprudence concerning hymen rupture healing times.

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- Background:In the case of Istikhar @ Iftikhar vs. The State, heard in the Lahore High Court, appellant Istikhar @ Iftikhar appealed against a conviction for rape under Section 376 PPC. The incident occurred on March 27, 2018, when the appellant allegedly committed Zina-bil-Jabr (rape) on a minor, Mst. Asma Bibi, aged about 4/5 years. The conviction included a life sentence and a fine. The case was registered promptly after the occurrence, and the trial involved multiple witnesses, medical evidence, and a DNA report.---Issues:Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness and medical testimony.Whether the charge of rape was supported by the medical evidence, despite the appellant's defense that the medical examination showed no full penetration and a negative DNA report.Whether the sentence handed down was proportionate to the appellant?s act.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of the trial court. The court found the prosecution's evidence to be cogent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring. Eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence supported the conviction. The medical examination noted injuries consistent with sexual assault, even though full penetration was disputed and the DNA analysis was negative. The court dismissed the appellant?s claims of being falsely implicated and found no merit in the defense's arguments against the nature of the assault and the DNA findings. The court emphasized the severe impact of the appellant's actions on the minor victim and found no grounds for leniency.-----Citations/Precedents:Section 376(3) PPC: Defines the offense of rape.Section 382-B Cr.P.C.: Refers to entitlements and considerations during sentencing.Medical jurisprudence texts: Cited to support findings on the nature of injuries and sexual assault, including works by C.K. Parikh and H.M.V. Cox.Supreme Court decisions:Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey and another (1992 SCR (2) 921, 1992 SCC (3) 204): Discussed the criteria for establishing rape based on penetration.Abdul Ghani vs. The State through P.G. Balochistan and another (2022 SCMR 544): Stressed that negative DNA findings do not undermine a robust prosecution case supported by overwhelming evidence.Parikh?s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and ToxicologySimpson's Forensic Medicine (Tenth Edition) by Bernard Knight

Summary: i. The medical evidence in the shape of DNA report has advanced the cause of the prosecution and it was because of this modern scientific invention that the prosecution easily reached to the culprit.ii. The DNA report and the injuries mentioned and confirmed by the doctor, are sufficient factors which confirm the involvement of the appellant and his brutality to which the deceased was subjected.iii. What a heart this monster had, while butchering the noblest soul, what leniency can be shown to the one who himself was not lenient. He deserves the treatment he treated Manahil. He must receive what he gave, he killed and he must be, provided the law permits. As from beginning to the end he is shown connected and as the collected evidence speaks of his guilt, so we subscribe to the conclusion drawn be the learned court below.

Summary: The acceptance of DNA reports is grounded in the doctrine of the law of individuality, which posits that every object, natural or man-made, possesses a unique identity that is not duplicated elsewhere. This principle is exemplified in the field of fingerprint analysis, where no two fingerprints are identical.The passage refers to the case of Regina v. Onufrejczyk (1955), where Lord Goddard, CJ of England, established the principle that the fact of death in a murder trial can be proven through circumstantial evidence. Even in the absence of witnesses or direct evidence, the corpus delicti (body of the crime) can be established through circumstances that leave no room for doubt.In the context of DNA evidence, the doctrine of individuality is complemented by the doctrine of analysis. The latter underscores the importance of impeccable sampling, correct packing, safe custody, and reliable transmission to the expert's office. The passage emphasizes that improper sampling, unsafe custody, or doubtful transmission can undermine the reliability and credibility of a positive DNA report, rendering it unworthy of reliance in legal proceedings. --- The foundation of the "last seen together" theory was based on principles of probability, cause and effect, and required cogent reasons to establish that the deceased was supposed to be with the accused. Critical factors included the proximity of the crime scene, a small time gap between the sighting and the crime, the absence of third-party interference, motive, and the time of the victim's death. However, the circumstance alone did not necessarily implicate the accused; additional evidence connecting them to the crime was deemed crucial.The judgement referenced legal cases to support this theory, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny due to the potential for the fabrication of evidence. It highlighted a case where last seen evidence had to be corroborated by independent sources, as uncorroborated evidence was considered weak in cases involving capital punishment.The judgement then delved into a specific case, scrutinizing the evidence of last seen together and the recovery of the victim's body. It pointed out various shortcomings in the witness testimony, including discrepancies in the time and place of the sighting. It also questioned the delay in reporting the incident and highlighted inconsistencies in the witness's statements during cross-examination.Furthermore, the judgement discussed the recovery of the corpse on the accused's disclosure, emphasizing the legal limitations on using confessions made to the police. It underscored the importance of proper documentation, such as memos, to establish the admissibility of such statements. In this case, the lack of a memo raised doubts about the reliability of the recovery process.The judgement concluded by questioning the evidentiary value of a positive DNA report, highlighting issues related to sampling, custody, and transmission. It argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, leading to the appeal court's decision to acquit the appellant based on the benefit of the doubt. The death sentence was not confirmed, and the Murder Reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted for the murder of her husband, and her four children by the Additional Sessions Judge in Khushab, based on an incident that occurred on July 11, 2018. The conviction was based on the testimony of the complainant and witnesses who claimed to have found the appellant at the crime scene holding a knife. The appellant was sentenced to death on five counts under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). She appealed the decision, and the case was reviewed by the Lahore High Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the murders. ----2- Whether the delay in reporting the crime raised doubts about the prosecution's case. ----3- Whether the testimony of witnesses, who were classified as chance witnesses, could be relied upon. ----4- Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was credible. ----5- Whether the medical and forensic evidence supported the conviction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delay in Reporting: The court found that there was an unexplained delay in registering the FIR, which raised suspicion about the authenticity of the prosecution’s case. The complainant’s delayed actions were not satisfactorily explained. --Testimony of Chance Witnesses: The court doubted the reliability of the witnesses (the complainant and others) who were not from the vicinity and were classified as chance witnesses. Their presence at the crime scene at an odd hour (3:30 a.m.) without a clear and plausible reason diminished the credibility of their testimony. --Extra-Judicial Confession: The appellant's alleged confession made to family members, who were hostile towards her, was deemed unreliable. The court noted that such confessions are the weakest form of evidence and should be corroborated by strong and independent evidence, which was lacking in this case. --Forensic Evidence: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a connection between the appellant and the crime through forensic evidence. The absence of a DNA test to match the blood on the weapons and clothes with that of the deceased weakened the prosecution’s case. Additionally, no fingerprints were found on the murder weapons. --Medical Evidence: The court held that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. While the postmortem reports confirmed the deaths, they did not link the appellant to the crime. No significant findings from the forensic reports were brought forward to prove the appellant's involvement. --Motive: The alleged motive, that the appellant committed the murders due to being tortured by her husband, was not supported by any independent evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide any reason for why the appellant would also kill her children. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and death sentence were overturned, and the appellant was acquitted. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64) Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 16) Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2021 SCMR 542) Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others (2006 SCMR 231) Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274) Nasir Javed and another v. The State (2016 SCMR 1144) Imran alias Dully and another v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155) Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652) Muhammad Pervez v. The State and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 592) ----Quote: ''If blood group of deceased of the case is noted by the doctor in the post-mortem examination report, then it would be helpful for ascertaining blood group available on blood stained cotton secured from the place of occurrence, blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood stained weapon as well as for D.N.A. test.''