Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377, 342, 506 & 34---Rape, unnatural offence, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations of abduction and unnatural offence were levelled against the accused/petitioner---Apparently the FIR suffered a delay of almost twenty-seven days---Perusal of the document revealed that complainant, a teenage boy, reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and had justified the said lapse of time by stating that he was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner---Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the case was examined---During the perusal of record, statement of witness caught the attention---Said witness had corroborated the statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage---Said witness also stated about some video recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media---Regarding abduction for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim was corroborated by the witness---There was prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under S. 367-A, P.P.C provided capital punishment---Delay in lodging of the report was explained by the complainant and same was corroborated by the witness---Other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner was not convincing---Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility was out of consideration---Mere fact that accused/petitioner was a juvenile could be considered in other offences, but in a case where the accused was charged for un-natural offence and prima facie evidence supported the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile---Without recording and discussing this point any further, lest the Trial Court would get influenced, the matter was left at the discretion of Trial Court---However, keeping in view the gravity of offences, the accused/petitioner could not be granted benefit of him being one year below the age of adulthood at this stage---Bail application being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances. Umair v. The State 2021 MLD 527 and Farman Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 343 rel. Muntazir Abbas for Petitioner. Malik Sherbaz Khan Additional Advocate General for the State. Complainant in person along with counsel Imtiaz Huassain. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025.

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: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(1), first proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 342---Dacoity, wrongful confinement---Post- arrest bail, grant of---Female accused--- Entitlement to bail---Scope---Under first provisio to S.497(1), Cr.P.C, a woman accused may be released on bail in non-bailable offence---In the present case, record reflected that subsequent FIR pertaining to main offence of recovery had been registered against both female applicants and in that FIR they were granted bail---The lathis were also not recovered from the present applicants at the time of their arrest---Prima facie, the applicants had no active participation/role as per contents of FIR except their mere presence at the spot---Thus, the applicants (female accused persons) had been able to make out a case for grant of bail---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Ghazala v. The State and another 2023 SCMR 887 and Bahadur v. The State and another SBLR 2025 Sindh 193 ref. Sabir Ali Samo for Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G. Sindh for the State. Miss Rizwana Jabeen Siddique for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted-----Background: The petitioners were charged and convicted for a shocking terrorist attack that killed eight police personnel at Police Check Post Qudratabad in 2009. The attack involved firing and a bomb blast, causing the building to collapse. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to multiple death penalties by the Trial Court, which were upheld by the Lahore High Court. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, identification parades, recoveries, and testimony from two alleged eyewitnesses introduced after the FIR. The petitioners challenged their convictions, claiming a false implication by the police due to personal vendetta. -----Issues: 1- Whether the FIR was delayed and manipulated to create false implications. ----2- Whether the eyewitnesses were credible and their testimony reliable. ----3- Whether the identification parades conducted were valid. ----4- Whether the recoveries and forensic evidence were admissible and sufficient for conviction. ----5- Whether the motive alleged by the prosecution was proven. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioners on the benefit of doubt, highlighting significant flaws in the prosecution’s case: --Delay in FIR: Despite the prosecution’s claim of prompt registration, the Court found substantial delays in filing the FIR. Procedural evidence, such as arranging a crane to clear debris and naming deceased officers under rubble within an implausibly short timeframe, suggested falsification of timing. --Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The two eyewitnesses were chance witnesses who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene during the late hours. Their claim of traveling to buy a buffalo was unsupported by evidence. Their conduct was deemed unnatural, as they neither reported the incident immediately nor disclosed it at various police checkpoints en route to their destination. Cross-examination revealed their personal connections with some victims, further questioning their objectivity. --Defective Identification Parades: The joint identification parade violated procedural requirements, and no specific roles were attributed to the accused during the parade. This rendered the identification unreliable. Recoveries and Forensics: Recoveries of alleged weapons were not put to the accused in their Section 342 Cr.P.C. statements, violating fair trial standards. --Unsubstantiated Motive: The prosecution failed to prove that the accused were linked to terrorist organizations or had a motive for the attack. Evidence showed a possible vendetta by the local police due to prior legal action against them. The Court emphasized the importance of relying on credible and corroborated evidence, especially in capital punishment cases. The acquittal underscores the judicial principle that conviction in criminal cases must be based on evidence free of reasonable doubt, even in cases involving heinous offenses. -----Citations/Precedents: Haroon v. State (1995 SCMR 1627): Importance of verifying witness reliability regardless of lack of enmity. Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142): Testimony of chance witnesses must be corroborated with plausible reasons for their presence. Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan (2020 SCMR 319): Disbelieving testimony of chance witnesses failing to justify presence. Kamal Din v. The State (2018 SCMR 577): Requirements for proper identification parades. Fida Hussain Shah v. The State (2024 SCMR 1622): Statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. must address all evidence. Haji Nawaz v. The State (2020 SCMR 687): Importance of addressing recoveries in accused statements. Muhammad Fazal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436): Convictions cannot be based on recoveries alone.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C) & Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.):----S. 392, S. 397, S. 34 P.P.C, S. 342, S. 154 Cr.P.CRobbery—Eyewitness testimony—Immediate arrest—Corroborative evidence—Prosecution's burden of proof—Scope—Appellant convicted under S. 392 P.P.C. for robbery at gunpoint—Trial court sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine—Held, that prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on multiple factors—(i) FIR was lodged promptly within an hour of the incident, eliminating the possibility of a fabricated case—(ii) Appellant was caught red-handed on the spot with the stolen items and an unlicensed firearm—(iii) Independent eyewitnesses, including the complainant and his fiancée, provided consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony—(iv) Arresting officer's testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination—(v) Defence failed to produce any rebuttal evidence or establish false implication—(vi) Mere absence of independent Mashirs (witnesses) was not fatal, as it is a judicially recognized fact that people avoid involvement in criminal proceedings—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474 and Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857—Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld.(b) Role of Eyewitnesses in Conviction:----Reliability of eyewitness testimony—Consistency of evidence—ScopeAppellant challenged conviction on grounds that prosecution witnesses were unreliable and had contradictions in their statements—Held, that prosecution witnesses provided a coherent and corroborated chain of events—Complainant and his fiancée independently identified appellant as the robber—Their testimonies were supported by immediate recovery of stolen items and the appellant's arrest at the scene—Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not affect credibility unless they create doubt regarding the entire prosecution case—Reliance placed on Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917 and Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725—Court found no contradictions serious enough to shake prosecution's case—Appeal dismissed.(c) Acquittal of Co-accused and Its Effect:----Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit appellant—ScopeAppellant argued that co-accused was acquitted, implying doubt in prosecution’s case—Held, that acquittal of co-accused did not affect appellant’s conviction as the circumstances differed—Co-accused Shan was arrested days later and shown to the complainant before the identification parade, rendering the parade inadmissible—No stolen property was recovered from co-accused, unlike the appellant, who was caught with stolen items at the scene—Court reiterated that each accused's liability is assessed based on individual evidence against them—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713—Appeal dismissed.(d) Case Law References:• Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474• Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857• Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917• Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725• Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.): ---S. 302(b)--- Qatl-e-amd (Intentional murder)---Conviction based on eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence, and motive--- The appellant was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C., for the murder of Khalid Pervaiz. The prosecution relied on reliable and corroborated eyewitness testimony, supported by medical evidence, forensic science reports (matching recovered bullet casings with the appellant's firearm), and the appellant's established motive for revenge. The court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 917) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.): ---Ss. 342, 154--- Delay in FIR---Explanation provided---Impact on prosecution's case--- The FIR was lodged after a brief delay of 1 hour and 45 minutes, attributed to the complainant prioritizing medical treatment for the deceased. The court found the delay adequately explained and dismissed any suggestion of fabrication or false implication. ----Cited Case: Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2021 SCMR 758) (c) Evidence: ---Eyewitness reliability---Corroboration from forensic and circumstantial evidence---Role of police witnesses---** The court accepted the eyewitness testimonies of close relatives of the deceased as trustworthy, noting their consistency and the absence of any motive to falsely implicate the accused. Forensic evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, and police witnesses' testimonies were deemed credible as no enmity or ill-will towards the accused was established. ----Cited Cases: Zakirkhan v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 474) (d) Sentence---Death penalty---Justification--- The court upheld the death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce the penalty. The brutal, premeditated nature of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the motive for revenge justified the sentence. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence maintained. Confirmation reference answered in the affirmative.

Summary: (Bail Allowed--crime report was lodged nine months and sixteen days after the alleged robbery, without a clear explanation for the delay. The court also observes that no recovery has been made from the petitioner despite his time in police custody) the petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo, seeked post-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 395/342/506-II of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The alleged offense includes the armed robbery of a Toyota Corolla car, cash amounting to Rs. 65,000, and a driving license. The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated and presents several arguments in his favor. His counsel asserts that there was a significant delay of more than nine months in lodging the crime report, and no incriminating evidence was found during the investigation. The petitioner claims that the High Court did not adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the fair administration of criminal justice while denying bail. The State and the complainant oppose the petition, arguing that although there was a delay in filing the crime report, there was no mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. They claim that the complainant personally tried to recover the stolen property and approached the petitioner when he discovered his involvement. However, the petitioner allegedly refused to return the property, leading to the filing of the crime report. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court examines the available record. It notes that the crime report was lodged nine months and sixteen days after the alleged robbery, without a clear explanation for the delay. The court also observes that no recovery has been made from the petitioner despite his time in police custody. Considering the importance of personal liberty, the court concludes that bail should be granted in this case. It states that the petitioner's situation falls within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for further inquiry into his guilt. The court emphasizes that bail should be the rule rather than the exception, especially when based on mere allegations. Accordingly, the court converts the petition into an appeal, sets aside the previous order, and grants bail to the petitioner upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Summary: [Scope of the expression ?hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal? as used in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC] The Supreme Court's main task is to determine whether an accused person can be considered a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court explains that the phrase "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal" does not require a previous criminal record of convictions. Instead, the court must assess the character of the accused based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The gravity and severity of the alleged act can be sufficient to attract the fourth proviso even if the accused does not have a previous criminal record.In the present case, the Supreme Court concludes that the nature and manner of the offense, which involved cutting someone's nose, and the role attributed to the petitioner, make him a dangerous and harmful individual for society. As a result, he falls within the scope of a "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal," and the court declines to interfere with the impugned order denying bail.The Supreme Court dismisses the petition, but it directs the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial as quickly as possible.

Summary: [Scope of the expression ?hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal? as used in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC] The Supreme Court's main task is to determine whether an accused person can be considered a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court explains that the phrase "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal" does not require a previous criminal record of convictions. Instead, the court must assess the character of the accused based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The gravity and severity of the alleged act can be sufficient to attract the fourth proviso even if the accused does not have a previous criminal record.In the present case, the Supreme Court concludes that the nature and manner of the offense, which involved cutting someone's nose, and the role attributed to the petitioner, make him a dangerous and harmful individual for society. As a result, he falls within the scope of a "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal," and the court declines to interfere with the impugned order denying bail.The Supreme Court dismisses the petition, but it directs the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial as quickly as possible.

Summary: [Scope of the expression ?hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal? as used in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC] The Supreme Court's main task is to determine whether an accused person can be considered a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court explains that the phrase "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal" does not require a previous criminal record of convictions. Instead, the court must assess the character of the accused based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The gravity and severity of the alleged act can be sufficient to attract the fourth proviso even if the accused does not have a previous criminal record.In the present case, the Supreme Court concludes that the nature and manner of the offense, which involved cutting someone's nose, and the role attributed to the petitioner, make him a dangerous and harmful individual for society. As a result, he falls within the scope of a "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal," and the court declines to interfere with the impugned order denying bail.The Supreme Court dismisses the petition, but it directs the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial as quickly as possible.