Summary: Conviction upheld ----- Background:This case involves Imtiaz Ullah, who was tried and convicted by a trial court for the murder of Khurram Awais and the attempted murder of Imtiaz Hussain in a case registered under FIR No.377 dated 28.05.2016, with offenses under Sections 302/324/34 PPC at the Police Station City, District Mianwali. The incident occurred on 28.05.2016, resulting in the death of Khurram Awais and injuries to Imtiaz Hussain. The conviction was based on eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and other circumstantial details. Imtiaz Ullah, the appellant, challenged his conviction, leading to a combined hearing of the Murder Reference for the confirmation of his death sentence and his Criminal Appeal against the convictions.----Issues:The primary issues before the Lahore High Court were to review the evidence and circumstances surrounding the convictions of Imtiaz Ullah, evaluate the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, consider the medical evidence supporting the occurrence of the crime, and assess the relevance of the recovered weapon in the context of the forensic report. Additionally, the Court examined the alleged motive behind the occurrence and the implications of the appellant's relationship with the complainant (being his son-in-law).------Holding/Reasoning:The Lahore High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, upheld the conviction of Imtiaz Ullah for the murder of Khurram Awais under Section 302(b) PPC but altered the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court found the eyewitness accounts of Imtiaz Hussain and Kaflain Mehmood Shah credible and unshaken by cross-examination. The medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of the crime as described by the witnesses. The Court dismissed the motive related to familial disputes as not credible but did not find it fatal to the prosecution's case. The recovery of the weapon, despite a negative forensic report, was considered inconsequential to the overall evidence. The Court acknowledged mitigating circumstances, such as the lack of repeated fire shots and the disbelieved motive, in altering the sentence. The appellant's convictions and sentences for other offenses were maintained, and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.------Citations/Precedents:The Court referred to several precedents to support its reasoning and conclusions, including "Akbar Ali and others Vs. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 104) regarding the inconsequential nature of weapon recovery in light of a negative forensic report, and "Zafar Iqbal and others Vs. The State" (2014 SCMR 1227) in considering mitigating factors for sentencing. The judgments relied on established legal principles concerning eyewitness credibility, the relevance of medical evidence, and the assessment of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.18 & 22.70---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.102---Transportation of narcotics---Custody of property---Safe custody---Store-RoomRegister, non-production of---Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition ofproperty reduced to form of document---Scope---Accused was convicted for transportingnarcotics---In-charge Store Room had deposed that Investigating Officer had handed overparcels for safe custody and that he had made an entry of taking over in the Register XIX(Store Room Register)---However, neither extract of the entry was produced in evidence northe same was made as part of the challan---Where a written document existed, it had to beproduced as being best evidence of its own contents---Safe custody of the case propertycould have been established only when copy of the register of store room was formallybrought on the record of the Court---Any matter which was required by law to be reduced inthe form of a document, no oral evidence could be given for proof of that matter except thedocument itself---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art. 140---Transportation of narcotics---Cross-examination as to previous statements inwriting---Contradictory statements---Delay in recording statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Dishonest improvements---Scope---Accused was convicted for transporting narcotics---Investigating Officer had recorded statements of prosecution witnesses after 23 days of therecovery for which no explanation was given---Prosecution had alleged that the sampleswere separated from the four slabs which were sealed in parcel Nos. 1 to 4, while theremaining 3980 grams were sealed in parcel No. 5---According to S. 161, Cr.P.C. statementof In-charge Store Room, parcel No. 5 was not handed over to him by the InvestigatingOfficer, while in Court's statement he failed to explain the improvement made by him in hisexamination-in-chief---Such improvement was duly confronted to him under Art. 140 of theQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but he and the Investigating Officer had failed to tender anyplausible explanation---Accused could not be held guilty for recovery of four kilograms ofnarcotics---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of1984), Arts. 67 & 68---Transportation of narcotics---Period of detention to be consideredwhile awarding sentence of imprisonment---Previous good character, relevance of---Previousbad character not relevant---Scope---Accused was convicted for transporting narcotics---Trial Court had withheld the benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused wasprevious convict of an offence under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Held, that observations and findings of the Trial Court were absolutely illegal, because in acriminal case, the bad character of an accused was irrelevant under Art. 68 of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984, unless the evidence of his good character had not been given---Accused hadnot made statement on oath nor had he led any evidence that he was a person of goodcharacter---Trial Court had placed reliance and referred to an inadmissible piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 67 & 68---Criminal cases---Previous good character, relevance of---Previous badcharacter not relevant---Scope---Unless evidence of good character has been given, evidenceof bad character of an accused is irrelevant.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Chapt. III [Arts. 18 to 69]---Relevancy of facts---Scope---In civil and criminal cases,evidence may be given of the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue and of factsdeclared as relevant by Arts. 19 to 69 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Any fact which is not afact in issue or is not relevant, under Arts. 19 to 69, evidence of such fact is inadmissibleunder Art. 18---Relevancy is equal to admissibility. ---- Case Background: The appellant, Mir Hammal, was convicted of transporting narcotics under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA) in a case registered on June 29, 2022.Evidence of Safe Custody: The prosecution had to prove the safe custody of the seized narcotics as per Police Rules, 1934. However, there were issues with the evidence. The In-charge Store Room had stated that he received the parcels for safe custody and made an entry in the Store Room Register. Still, neither the extract of the entry nor a copy of the register was produced as evidence.Oral Evidence vs. Written Document: It was argued that when a written document exists, it should be produced as the best evidence of its contents. In this case, the failure to produce the register or a copy raised doubts about the safe custody of the narcotics.Inconsistent Statements: There were inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses. The statements of witnesses were recorded with a delay of 23 days, and no explanation was given for this delay. Additionally, there was a contradiction in the statements regarding the number of parcels handed over for safe custody.Benefit of Previous Conviction: The trial court had denied the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code on the grounds of a previous conviction. However, this decision was found to be incorrect because the bad character of an accused is irrelevant unless evidence of good character has been presented, which was not the case here.Relevance of Good Character: In criminal cases, evidence of a person's good character is relevant. However, the appellant did not provide evidence of good character.Conclusion: Based on these issues, the appeal against the appellant's conviction was allowed, and he was acquitted of the charges.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused by corrosive substance---Appreciation of evidence--- Medical evidence corroborating prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by sprinkling acid on him, which resulted into burning of his face, chest and legs and later on he succumbed to his injuries---Medical evidence so produced by the prosecution established the unnatural death of deceased, who was injured due to sprinkling of acid and he remained under treatment at Burn Ward of hospital and succumbed to the injuries after five months and 21-days---Medical evidence also confirmed the receipt of acid burn injuries by the mother of the accused---Defence did not dispute the unnatural death of the deceased, but pleaded his false implication---Besides, the report of Forensic Science Agency also confirmed the identity of acid in the recovered bottle and on the clothes of the deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused by corrosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by sprinkling acid on him, which resulted into burning of his face, chest and legs and later on he succumbed to his injuries---Criminal law was brought into motion by the father of the deceased, who fully corroborated his earlier statement as contained in his fard-e-bayan---Said witness in his Court statement narrated the whole story with regard to the receipt of acid burn injuries disclosing the facts involved behind the incident by his deceased son, who was injured at the relevant time---Though complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident, but he narrated that story, which was deposed to him by the then injured son, which was further corroborated by the statements of eye-witness and Medical Officer, which fact had further been strengthened by the statement of the real mother of accused, who in her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., deposed that on the fateful day, she was taking rest in the lower floor, and on hearing hue and cry on the roof, she went there and saw that her son/accused and deceased were quarreling with each other and some acid also got sprinkled on her---Bottle of the acid was in the hand of accused and due to sprinkling of acid accused and deceased became injured---Accused stopped after seeing his mother, but deceased and his companion/eye- witness escaped---Mother of accused had shown her ignorance about the incident with respect to the reason due to which they were quarreling---However, mother of accused was dropped and was not produced as a witness---Thus, a question arose in a prudent mind that since the said witness was the real mother of the accused and due to love and affection, she might have refused to give a statement against her real son---Thus, non-production of such witness in the Court would not affect the case of the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Qaun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused by corrosive sub-stance---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by sprinkling acid on him, which resulted into burning of his face, chest and legs and later on he succumbed to his injuries--- Deceased succumbed to the injuries prior to recording his statement before the Trial Court, however, the fact remained that the statement recorded by the deceased fully supported the prosecution version and named the accused as the real culprit, who threw acid upon his person---Medical evidence and the other facts and circumstances of the case would suggest that the deceased was severely injured, but he was in his senses to record such a statement before the Investigating Officer---Thus, under the settled norms of justice, the statement of the deceased was rightly declared as a dying declaration---Even otherwise, the most important evidence on such behalf was the medical evidence recorded by Medical Officer, who brought nothing on record that the deceased during his surviving period was not in his senses or he could not have recorded his statement before the police---Dying declaration recorded by the deceased was in simple words, wherein the deceased implicated the accused with specific role which had been proved by the prosecution through direct, ocular and medical evidence---Thus, no lawful justification was found whatsoever to disbelieve dying declaration of deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Zafar Iqbal alias Shahid v. The State PLD 2004 SC 367 and Muhammad Ahsan alias Aksan v. The State PLD 2006 SC 163 rel. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 46---Dying declaration---Scope---Dying person would never make an attempt to conceal the truth or make an attempt to save those, who had brought him to bed of death--- Sacredness and purity are always attached to a dying declaration because it is supposed that when a dying person was face to face with death, he would like to make peace with Al- Mighty Allah and it is not expected that he tells lies---Dying declaration is always treated as very strong piece of evidence; such type of evidence needs no further corroboration by any other evidence---Thus, without looking for any independent witness, the sole statement of the deceased being his dying declaration is enough to establish the guilt of the accused. Naimat Ali v. The State 1981 SCMR 61 and Farmullah v. Qadeem Khan 2001 SCMR 1474 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Qaun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused by corrosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by sprinkling acid on him, which resulted into burning of his face, chest and legs and later on he succumbed to his injuries---In the present case, one person appeared as defence witness and while deposing diverted the angle of the prosecution story, which was narrated by the accused in his statement under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C.---According to the statements of accused and defence witness the acid was sprinkled on deceased and he was seriously injured and defence witness took them to hospital and while leaving them on the main gate, he went from there---Keeping their statements in juxtaposition with the medical evidence and the statement of mother of accused, recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C, which did not corroborate their version, as such, their statements could not be believed---Nothing on record was available to show any previous enmity between the accused and complainant except the allegation that the then injured used to talk to his sister-in-law on mobile, which allegation was refuted by the then injured and despite that, the accused threw acid on the deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Abdul Wahid v. The State 2003 SCMR 668 and Noor Khan v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 790 rel.

Summary: Scope of u/s 366 PPC, 50/53 CPA.

Summary: u/s 302, 324, 148, 149 PPC.Appeal against Conviction.

Summary: u/s 387, 506, 419, 420,34 PPC, 25 Telegraph, 14 Foreign Act.Appeal against conviction.

Summary: u/s 302, 324,148, 149 PPC.Appeal against Conviction.

Summary: (Appeal against conviction)Held: (i) A fundamental right by no stretch of imagination can be taken away by way of technicalities.(ii) Under Section 13(1) of the FIGR 2018, a Deputy Commissioner/Judge, after the registration of criminal case, was required to refer the matter to the Council of Elders for its findings of facts whereas in this case the Assistant Commissioner dispensed with fact finding inquiry through the Council of Elders and directly convicted the appellant. Such a conviction was nullity in the eye of law.(iii) Provisions of Section 16 of FIGR-2018 are supplemental to Section 13(3) and cannot be applied in isolation thereto. The sentence can be enforced under Regulation 17 in the cases where provisions of Regulation 16 are fulfilled, whereas Regulation 16 is dependent upon Regulation 13(3). Thus without complying provisions of Regulation 13(3), punishment on conviction under Regulation 16 or enforcing sentence under Regulation 17 cannot be made.(iv) Criminal case was registered during the reign of FIGR, 2018 and presently the said Regulations are not in the field, therefore, in view of mandate of Article 264 of Constitution, upon setting aside the conviction matter is remanded and referred to the prosecution to submit complete challan against the accused.(Appeal was allowed and case was remanded in the circumstances).

Summary: (Appeal against conviction)Held: (i) Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Protection & Welfare Act,2010, is applicable to all forms of sexual abuse without any classificationbetween the Child and child at risk .(ii) In view of contradictions between the statements of the complainant andthe victim, same could not be relied upon for sustaining conviction.(iii) Parents of the victim were best witnesses to corroborate the depositions ofthe complainant and the victim, however, they were not produced before theCourt, which reacted against the prosecution.(iv) The Investigating Officer contradicted the statements of the complainantand the victim.(v) No grouping of the semen/blood on shalwar of the victim with that of theaccused was conducted by the Forensic Expert in order to confirm that thesemen stains on shalwar of the victim were that of the accused.(Appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted in the circumstances).

Summary: Appeal against conviction (DB).Held:I). When such is the situation we are left with the only choice to hold that the parties were engaged in a free fight and in that eventuality instead of looking for joint liability, the role of every individual accused charged is to be assessed on the basis of his Involvement in the episode and the role played.II). As the approach of learned trial Court on this particular aspect of the case was correct and as the eye-witness account was not disbelieved out rightly, so the defence cannot press into service the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, as still the prosecution has in its possession the remaining evidence, which can be read together with the report made by the deceased while injured and the opinion of Standing Medical Board.III). It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule when a dying declaration should be accepted, beyond saying that each case must be decided in the light of other facts and the surrounding circumstances, but if the court, after taking everything into consideration, is convinced that the statement is true, it is its duty to convict, notwithstanding that there is no corroboration in the true sense.IV). Believing or disbelieving dying declaration is not an exercise in application of law rather it is an application of simple human judgment .V). The record of the case and the statements recorded leads us nowhere but to hold that the intention was not to kill, as the selection of weapon and the seat of injury excludes the eagerness to kill, so we are not impressed with the approach of the learned trial court, on this particular aspect of the case.VI). while assessing the collected material we are persuaded in holding, that the correct application of law, in case of the convict/appellant, Lutf-ur-Rehman, would be section 315 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and not section 302(b) P.P.C, i.e. Qatl Shibh-i-amd'.(Appeal was allowed and the accused/appellants were acquitted in theCircumstances).