Summary: (a) Criminal trial----Appreciation of evidence----Contradictions in ocular account, infirm investigation and benefit of doubt----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b); Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A & 382-B---Accused/petitioners were convicted under S.302(b), PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C., their convictions having been upheld by the High Court---Held, on reappraisal of the evidence, the prosecution case was found to be tainted with material doubts and contradictions: the occurrence was a night-time incident but the source of light was neither mentioned in the statements of key witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., nor properly secured or verified at the spot; the ocular witnesses admitted that they did not intervene or attempt to overpower the assailants and only raised hue and cry; important witnesses were either related to the complainant or chance witnesses; there were significant contradictions between statements of PWs and their earlier police versions regarding the manner of occurrence, the blows attributed to the accused, the alleged motive and the source of light; the investigation officer did not secure blood-stains from the place of occurrence, did not send blood-stained clothes and hatchets for DNA analysis and admitted that entries regarding deposit of parcels were incomplete; report No.21 did not tally with the complainant’s statement---Cumulatively, these infirmities created serious doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution case, which had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt---Benefit of such doubt was extended to the accused, resulting in their acquittal and setting aside of the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court. (b) Criminal trial----Night-time occurrence----Source of light not secured or proved----Effect on identification of accused---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b); Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), S.161---Occurrence admittedly took place at about 8:30 p.m.; complainant and eyewitnesses did not mention the source of light in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.; draftsman conceded that he had wrongly shown a single bulb in the site plan, which bulb was neither taken into possession by the I.O. nor inspected to confirm whether it was in working order, and even its placement was incorrectly noted---Held, such failure to secure and prove the alleged source of light, coupled with omissions in statements, cast a serious doubt on the identification of the assailants at the crime scene in a night-time occurrence---Reliance in this regard was placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State (2002 SCMR 1289) wherein non-seizure of the torchlight mentioned in the F.I.R. rendered the night-time identification doubtful, and on Khair Muhammad v. State (2025 SCMR 1599) where benefit of doubt was accorded for not taking into possession the source of light---Following the said principles, non-production and non-verification of the alleged bulb in the present case was treated as a significant circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution story. (c) Criminal trial----Recovery of weapons of offence----Delay in dispatch to PFSA---Non-association of independent witnesses---Mismatch between recovered weapon and recovery memo---Failure to send exhibits for DNA analysis----Effect----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Prosecution case rested, inter alia, on recovery of hatchets at the instance of the accused from Mangla bypass/Rohtas Fort area; the police witnesses admitted that: they did not mention in their S.161, Cr.P.C. statements who had given them information regarding presence of the accused or the exact location on the bypass; recovery was allegedly effected from a thickly populated area with houses and shops nearby yet no independent witness from the village or locality was associated, nor even their names recorded; the top of one recovered hatchet did not match the sketch prepared with the recovery memo and this discrepancy remained unexplained; Register No.19 did not mention date of deposit of the hatchets; the parcels containing the hatchets were dispatched to PFSA only on 15.08.2018, i.e., after about 27 days of occurrence, and PW Moharrar admitted giving no explanation for this delay; the I.O. further admitted that he did not send hatchets and blood-stained clothes for DNA analysis and did not secure blood from the place of occurrence---Held, these lapses seriously undermined the sanctity of the alleged recoveries and chain of custody; in the absence of independent corroboration and with unexplained delay and discrepancies in the description of the weapons, the recovery evidence could not safely be relied upon for sustaining conviction; such infirmities added to the overall doubt in the prosecution case and were resolved in favour of the accused. (d) Criminal trial----Motive---Failure to prove motive, effect when other evidence is already doubtful---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Prosecution alleged a prior altercation between one of the accused and the deceased as motive but the complainant and witnesses admitted during trial that they did not furnish any evidence regarding the alleged motive and some witnesses even expressed lack of knowledge about any prior altercation; complainant also did not mention the reason for altercation as motive in his earlier statement---Trial Court as well as High Court had already disbelieved the motive while still maintaining conviction on other material---Held, in circumstances where the prosecution had itself failed to substantiate the motive set up by it and where independent and investigative evidence also suffered from serious defects, nothing remained to buttress the prosecution version; failure to prove motive, when viewed alongside other discrepancies and doubts, further weakened the prosecution case and reinforced the conclusion that conviction could not be maintained. (e) Criminal trial----Standard of proof----Extent and nature of “reasonable doubt” necessary for acquittal---Single reasonable doubt sufficient----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Held, prosecution is bound to stand on its own legs and must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; where, on appraisal of evidence, doubts arise which are reasonable and not imaginary or fanciful, the accused is entitled to benefit of such doubt as a matter of right and not of concession---It is not necessary that there be multiple infirmities or numerous doubtful circumstances; even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal---Reliance was placed on Ahmed Ali and another v. The State (2023 SCMR 781), in which this Court reiterated that the slightest reasonable doubt would warrant acquittal, and on a consistent line of precedents including Tajamal Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567), Sajjad Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1540), Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (2022 SCMR 1527), Kashif Ali v. The State (2022 SCMR 1515), Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2022 SCMR 1328), Khalid Mehmood v. The State (2022 SCMR 1148), Muhammad Sami Ullah v. The State (2022 SCMR 998), Bashir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 986), The State v. Ahmed Omer Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873), Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736), Muhammad Imran v. The State (2020 SCMR 857), Abdul Jabbar v. The State (2019 SCMR 129), Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749), Khalid Mehmood v. The State (2011 SCMR 664), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v. The State (2008 SCMR 1572), Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). (f) Criminal procedure----Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal---Acquittal on benefit of doubt---Effect on connected miscellaneous application---Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)---Criminal petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal; for reasons of doubts and infirmities in the prosecution case, appeal was allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by trial Court and maintained by High Court were set aside and appellants were acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt; it was directed that, if not required in any other case, they be released forthwith---Connected Criminal Misc. Application was not pressed by learned counsel and was dismissed as not pressed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Principles reiterated: Where prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, crucial elements including motive, last seen evidence, and recoveries failed to meet the evidentiary threshold. No independent corroboration was offered for last seen testimony, and the time of death was not medically established to connect it with the alleged departure of the deceased. —Held: Benefit of doubt is to be extended where circumstantial evidence is fractured. [Cited: PLD 2019 SC 64 (Asia Bibi); 1995 SCMR 1345 (Tariq Pervaiz); PLD 2002 SC 1048 (Ayub Masih)] (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Article 40 – Scope and evidentiary limits The Court comprehensively examined Article 40 of QSO, distinguishing between "discovery" and mere "recovery". It reaffirmed that only that portion of custodial disclosure leading directly to the discovery of a new fact is admissible. Procedural lapses—such as absence of departure entries, unsigned statements, and lack of attestation by independent witnesses—render the recoveries unreliable. —Held: The safeguards under Article 40 QSO and procedural law must be strictly followed to render evidence admissible. [Cited: 2021 SCMR 873 (Ahmed Omar Sheikh); 2024 SCMR 1773 (Zafar Ali Abbasi); 1995 SCMR 1293 (Yaqub Shah)] (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 103, 161, 173 – Investigative shortcomings: The Court condemned systemic investigative failures, including unsigned disclosure statements, absence of independent mashirs, and lack of prompt documentation. It noted that such practices undermine due process and erode public trust in the justice system. —Direction issued: IGs of Police and Prosecutor Generals across provinces instructed to implement mandatory procedural safeguards for custodial recoveries and ensure transparency in investigation. —Legislative recommendation: Statutory amendments urged to codify requirements for admissible custodial disclosures. (d) Last seen evidence – Requirement for corroboration – Delay in reporting: The alleged last seen testimony of close relatives (father and maternal uncle) lacked corroboration. There was also unexplained delay in reporting and no scientific determination of time of death to match the last seen timeline. —Held: In absence of independent corroboration, such evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. [Cited: PLD 2018 SC 813 (Muhammad Abid); 2017 SCMR 2026 (Fayyaz Ahmad); 2007 SCMR 486 (Akbar Ali)] (e) Appeal against acquittal – Principle of reinforced presumption of innocence: Appeal challenging acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. The Court reiterated that findings of acquittal are afforded greater weight and cannot be reversed unless perverse or contrary to law. [Cited: 2024 SCMR 51 (Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad)] ----Disposition: Criminal Petition No. 532 of 2018 converted into appeal and allowed; conviction of Zunair Younas set aside; acquitted. Criminal Petition No. 444-L of 2018 (seeking enhancement of sentence) dismissed as infructuous. Criminal Petition No. 445-L of 2018 (challenging acquittal of co-accused) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Writ petition—Scope—Police inaction—Investigation and recording of cross-version—Petitioner, wife of deceased Dr. Muhammad Saeed, sought directions to register her cross-version against stepchildren of the deceased and take action against Police officials for allegedly neglecting evidence—Held, petitioner had already been investigated, declared innocent by the I.O., and placed in column No. 2 of Challan, but the Judicial Magistrate disagreed—Private complaint proceeded and ultimately both the petitioner and co-accused were acquitted during the pendency of writ petition—High Court held that once a full trial had concluded, issuing fresh directions for investigation would be futile—Petitioner has alternative remedy of filing private complaint—Petition dismissed as misconceived. Cited Case: PLD 2018 SC 595 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 161, 173, 22-A & 22-B Investigation—Cross-version—Role of Magistrate—Petitioner sought to register cross-version under S. 22-A Cr.P.C., alleging bias and selective investigation by Police—Held, statement of petitioner was recorded and acknowledged, but no further action was taken—Since trial concluded with acquittal of accused, fresh investigation not justified—Petitioner may pursue a private complaint under the law—Court declined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (c) Administration of justice: **----Police investigation—Allegation of bias—Held, where competent court has tried the matter and rendered judgment based on evidence, investigation proceedings lose relevance—Any further investigation or direction under constitutional jurisdiction would be parallel to the concluded trial—Doctrine of finality applies—No merit found in plea to reopen investigation on speculative or belated assertions. ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed—Petitioner’s grievance pertains to Police inaction and alleged biased investigation; however, a full trial has been concluded and petitioner acquitted—Direction for fresh investigation found unwarranted—Petitioner advised to pursue private complaint, if so advised. "Respondent no. 2 and 4 be directed to act according law on the light of cross version of the petitioner and also direct the respondent no.1 to 4 do needfull act to search the real culprit of murder"

Summary: Effect of non-production of complaint bearer in a case under Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997Acquittal granted----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997:----S. 9(c)—Possession of narcotics—Benefit of doubt—Acquittal—Prosecution alleged recovery of 1100 grams of heroin from appellant during a raid conducted based on spy information—Key prosecution witness, Head Constable Muhammad Ali Adil, who conveyed FIR and initiated investigation, neither cited in the list of witnesses nor examined—Non-recording of statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C. held fatal—Absence of sample bearer from witness box also rendered recovery doubtful—Failure to produce white shopping bag used for concealment of narcotics further cast doubt—Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Appellant acquitted as matter of right, not concession.Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326; Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 ref.(b) Criminal trial----Benefit of doubt—Scope—Even a single infirmity in prosecution evidence is sufficient for acquittal—Appellant not required to prove innocence or create multiple doubts—Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused—Failure to associate or examine material witness undermined prosecution’s case—Held, burden lies on prosecution to establish guilt beyond shadow of doubt.Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 161—Statement of witness—Failure to record statement of key prosecution witness—Effect—Head Constable who conveyed FIR to duty officer and initiated further investigation was neither examined nor his statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C.—Held, such omission amounts to withholding of best available evidence and weakens the prosecution case—No explanation given for non-production.----Disposition:Appeal accepted—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant Mst. Bisma alias Sana acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––Ss. 9(c), 15 & 29–––Possession of narcotics–––Recovery of large quantity–––Presumption under S.29–––Driver of vehicle–––Appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle carrying 13.2 kg of opium and 4.8 kg of charas hidden in a secret cavity–––Prosecution established continuous chain of custody from recovery to chemical analysis through unimpeached testimony of PW.2 and PW.3–––Chemical Examiner’s reports confirmed presence of narcotics and were found to be in compliance with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001–––Held, driver of vehicle is presumed to be in possession and knowledge of narcotics unless rebutted–––Appellant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut presumption or establish false implication–––Appeal dismissed–––Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with fine upheld. Cited Cases: • Faisal Shahzad v. The State, 2022 SCMR 905 • Ajab Khan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 317 • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Sherzada v. The State, 1993 SCMR 149 • Nadir Khan v. The State, 1988 SCMR 1899 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 161, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of public witnesses–––Effect–––Appellant argued that no private person was made witness to the recovery, violating S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Held, S.25 of CNSA explicitly excludes the application of S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Police witnesses are competent and their testimony cannot be discarded merely due to official status–––Statements of PWs remained consistent on material points and withstood cross-examination–––No mala fides or animosity alleged against prosecution witnesses–––Benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. was rightly extended by Trial Court. Cited Cases: • Zaffar v. The State, 2008 SCMR 1254 • State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad, 2017 SCMR 283 • Salah-ud-Din v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1962 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): –––Burden of proof–––Presumption of possession–––Appellant failed to discharge burden under S.29 of CNSA–––Vehicle was in appellant’s control and narcotics were hidden in a concealed cavity–––Held, items recovered from a vehicle in an accused’s control are presumed to be in his possession and knowledge–––Appellant’s denial was not substantiated with any credible evidence–––Mere procedural objections do not outweigh the substantial and consistent prosecution evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Adil Ahmed v. Deputy Collector C&CE, 1991 SCMR 1951 • Rab Nawaz v. The State, PLD 1984 SC 858

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law: --- Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376, 380 --- Abduction, rape, and theft --- Burden of proof --- Benefit of doubt --- The appellant was convicted for abducting a minor girl (13/14 years old), committing rape, and theft under Sections 365-B, 376, and 380 PPC. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and 25 years R.I. for rape, which was upheld by the High Court, except for the theft charge. Held, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious gaps in evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, delayed reporting, and absence of crucial witnesses. Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not concession. Conviction set aside. (b) Criminal Procedure: --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 342 --- Investigation flaws --- Non-production of material witnesses --- Effect on prosecution's case --- The mother and brothers of the victim, who were allegedly drugged and present during the incident, were neither cited as witnesses nor their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The prosecution also failed to produce the old lady who allegedly provided information about the victim’s location. Held, withholding of material witnesses creates serious doubts under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as the court must presume that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (c) Forensic & Medical Evidence: --- Rape allegations --- Delay in medical examination --- Evidentiary value --- The vaginal swabs of the victim were sent to the Chemical Examiner three weeks after recovery, with no explanation for the delay. The victim’s medical report showed old, healed hymenal tears, and no semen analysis of the accused was conducted. Held, forensic evidence was inconclusive and could not establish rape beyond doubt, making reliance solely on the victim’s testimony unsafe. (d) Delay in FIR & Recovery of Victim: --- Unexplained delay in lodging FIR --- Independent recovery of the victim --- Effect on prosecution case --- The FIR was registered seven days after the alleged abduction, with no plausible explanation for the delay. Additionally, the victim was recovered by her father, not law enforcement, without police involvement. Held, these factors cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version and weaken the credibility of the case. (e) Benefit of Doubt & Acquittal: --- Standard for acquittal --- Maxim “Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent suffer” --- The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and where doubt exists, it must favor the accused. Held, applying the principles in Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736), the accused was entitled to acquittal due to multiple contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence. (f) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted. Released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 302(b), 449 & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 374 Conviction based on untrustworthy ocular evidence, defective identification, and invalid recovery—Reversal of death sentence and acquittal. Prosecution case hinged on the ocular account of PW-10 and PW-11, who claimed to be present at the time of occurrence; however, the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the scene through any credible evidence—Witnesses did not produce documentation proving their employment at the site nor was their presence confirmed through site plans prepared by the IO or draftsman—The behavior of witnesses during the occurrence was held to be unnatural, as they did not intervene or attempt to save the deceased—Such conduct was held contrary to ordinary human behavior as per Art.129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and principles laid down in Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 1373), Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315), and Shahzad Tanveer v. The State (2012 SCMR 172). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) — Arts. 22 & 129 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 161 — Identification parade—Testimony of eyewitnesses not reliable in absence of initial description or features. Appellant was not named in the FIR or initial statements; test identification parade was held without fulfilling legal safeguards—No prior description of the accused’s features was given in the FIR or statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.—Magistrate conducting the TIP failed to record date of custody or match dummy profiles—Witness admitted to having seen the accused in police custody before the parade—Such identification proceedings held unreliable in view of Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956), Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436), and State v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585). (c) Criminal trial — Recovery proceedings—Violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C.—Recovery evidence discarded. Recovery of wooden danda (P-8) held inadmissible due to non-association of independent witnesses—The recovery was effected from a location already visited by police multiple times without observing or collecting the alleged weapon—The recovered item was not blood-stained nor sent for forensic analysis—Such recovery proceedings, carried out in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 103 Cr.P.C., were excluded from consideration—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898). (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 — Motive — Unsubstantiated and weak motive not sufficient to sustain conviction. Prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to reside at the deceased’s workplace and was refused, leading to the altercation—No independent evidence presented to prove the motive or its intensity—Failure to substantiate motive weakened prosecution case—Principle followed from Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021). (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Art. 129—Medical evidence alone insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of credible ocular testimony. Although postmortem report confirmed death due to head injuries, medical evidence could not by itself identify the assailant—In absence of credible and corroborative ocular account, conviction could not be based on medical evidence alone—Guidance taken from Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) and PLD 2021 SC 600. (f) Criminal trial — Benefit of doubt—Right of the accused—Acquittal ordered. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Multiple material contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted—Appellant was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not concession—Principle reinforced through Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736). Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2023 allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted. Murder Reference No. 57 of 2023 answered in Negative—Death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Background: Multiple petitions were filed by several journalists against the Federation of Pakistan due to numerous FIRs registered against them across various regions of Pakistan. The petitioners, who were journalists critical of government, claimed that the FIRs were filed to suppress freedom of expression. The main grievances included the registration of FIRs under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) sections such as 131, 153, and 505, among others, for their opinions and reports shared on social media and television platforms. The petitioners requested the consolidation of all FIRs under one jurisdiction to prevent harassment and sought transitory bail. -----Issues: 1- Whether multiple FIRs related to the same incident or cause of action can be consolidated and tried under one jurisdiction. ----2- Whether the registration of FIRs in different jurisdictions amounts to political harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. ----3- Whether the actions of journalists expressing opinions on social media or television can be considered crimes under the PPC and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). ----4- Whether the authorities must provide complete records of all FIRs filed against the petitioners. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action, even if registered in different provinces, violate the legal principle established in the Sughran Bibi case. After the registration of the first FIR, any subsequent FIRs are to be treated as 161 CrPC statements or supplementary to the initial case. The court ruled that registering multiple FIRs against individuals expressing opinions through media platforms, especially journalists, constitutes harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. The FIRs were politically motivated and intended to punish the petitioners for their critical views. The court clarified that not all cases of expressing opinions on media platforms should be considered crimes under the PPC or PECA. For an act to qualify under PECA, specific mens rea and actus reus requirements must be met, and mere criticism does not fall under these categories. The authorities were directed to provide the petitioners with all the information and records related to FIRs filed against them. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the constitutional protections of due process and the right to a fair trial must be upheld in these cases. The petitions were disposed of, and the court provided protection orders to the petitioners, preventing further arrests related to the contested FIRs. -----Citations/Precedents: Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 539) Ch. Abdul Razzaq v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 Lahore 394) Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2019 Balochistan 27) Asad Qaiser v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Writ Petition No.5281-P/2023) Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85) Sandalbar Enterprises Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1997 SC 334) Sui Southern Gas Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 SCMR 802) Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act, 2021 (Enacted 01.12.2021)

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(c) – Safe Custody and Transmission of Contraband – Chain of Custody – Benefit of Doubt The appellant was convicted under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by the trial court for allegedly possessing two packets of charas, each weighing 1000 grams. However, the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and secure transmission of the contraband from the place of recovery to the laboratory. The evidence revealed an unexplained delay of three days in transmitting the contraband to the forensic laboratory, and no plausible explanation was provided regarding its safe custody during this period. The prosecution witnesses also exhibited contradictions regarding the timeline and handling of the sealed parcels. The chain of custody being compromised rendered the chemical examiner's report unreliable for sustaining a conviction. Reliance was placed on The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 161 – Delay in Recording Statements – Doubt in Prosecution's Case The statement of PW-5 under S. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after an unexplained delay of one month and five days, which weakened the prosecution's case. Delay in recording statements without a plausible explanation casts serious doubt on the reliability of the witness's testimony and undermines the prosecution's evidence. (c) Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: The prosecution is obligated to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal. The delay in transmission of the contraband to the laboratory and the contradictions in witness statements created reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221). ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. His bail bonds were discharged.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Circumstantial Evidence—Standard of Proof: ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 468, 471; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, Ss. 15 & 19; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. Accused was charged and convicted under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance, and the Arms Act for murder, forgery, and illegal possession of arms. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, call data records, identification parade, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused. Any missing link in the chain renders the evidence unreliable. In the instant case, serious discrepancies were noted in the collection, presentation, and corroboration of circumstantial evidence. Delays in recording witness statements, failure to follow protocols in the identification parade, contradictions in call data records, and absence of credible corroboration undermined the prosecution's case. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal cases. -----Cited Cases: Ibrahim and others v. The State (2009 SCMR 407) Imran alias Dully and another v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155) Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCMR 336) (b) Criminal Law—Hearsay Evidence—Admissibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. The supplementary statement of a witness implicating the accused was deemed inadmissible as it amounted to hearsay. The witness admitted that his knowledge about the accused's involvement was derived from information provided by investigation officials. Hearsay evidence, unless corroborated by direct evidence, cannot be relied upon for conviction. The court emphasized that only direct evidence, as stipulated under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, is admissible. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Azam and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2013 PCr.LJ 36) Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872) (c) Criminal Law—Identification Parade—Legal Requirements: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Identification parade proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities, including the accused being exposed to witnesses prior to the parade, absence of details regarding dummies, and failure to verify police custody duration. The Magistrate failed to record essential findings and verify compliance with prescribed procedures. The court held that such irregularities render the identification parade unreliable. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 769) Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424) (d) Criminal Law—Recovery Evidence—Admissibility and Corroboration: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Recovery of incriminating articles, including the weapon of offence and vehicle, failed to meet the required standard of proof. Evidence of recovery was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and procedural flaws were evident. Moreover, forensic analysis of the weapon and empties raised doubts due to irregularities in their handling and documentation. ----Cited Cases: Mian Khalid Perviz v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF and another (2021 SCMR 522) Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) (e) Investigation by Unauthorized Officer—Validity: ----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, S. 26(3). The investigation was conducted by an officer (Head Constable) who lacked the requisite legal authority to investigate a murder case. Under the Police Act, cases of murder must be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. The investigation by an unauthorized officer vitiated the credibility of the prosecution's case. (f) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt—Acquittal: ----General Principles of Criminal Law. The court reiterated the principle that benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not as a concession. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and multiple inconsistencies created significant doubts. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted. ----Cited Cases: Maqsood Ahmad v. The State and others (2017 MLD 1415) Mukhtiar Hussain v. The State (2017 MLD 745) Pirzada alias Peer v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 605) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.