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: Acquittal upheld --- Background: Faqir ur Rehman appealed against the acquittal of Hussain Ahmad by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Swabi, in the case FIR No.616 dated 05.09.2011 under Sections 302/201 PPC. The case involved the death of Faqir ur Rehman's daughter, Mst. Mahjabeen, who was married to Hussain Ahmad. The incident occurred on 27.08.2011, with the initial report suggesting death due to a gas cylinder explosion. However, Faqir ur Rehman later alleged that his daughter had been intentionally burned by Hussain Ahmad, leading to her death.-----Issues:Whether the death of Mst. Mahjabeen was due to accidental burning or intentional act by Hussain Ahmad.The credibility and timing of the medical report suggesting the use of kerosene oil, contrary to the initial gas explosion narrative.The relevance and reliability of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in establishing the cause of death.-----Holding/Reasoning:The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no substantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hussain Ahmad was responsible for the death. Key points included:Immediate medical care provided by Hussain Ahmad, indicating no malicious intent.Contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of the burn injuries, with one report suggesting kerosene oil involvement issued five days post-mortem, raising questions about its credibility.The trial court's judgment was deemed to have properly appreciated the evidence, with the appellate court requiring a more liberal approach in reviewing acquittals, as per precedent.-----Citations/Precedents:The appellate court referred to the case "Amir Khan vs. The State and another" (2000 MLD 766 Peshawar), where a medical report was disregarded due to contradictions with established evidence.The Supreme Court's stance in "The State through A.-G. N.-W.F.P vs. Mehmood Khan and others" (2007 SCMR 1390) was cited, emphasizing that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence."Muhammad Shafi vs. Muhammad Raza and another" (2008 SCMR 329) was also referenced, reinforcing the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases of acquittal.----Conclusion: The appellate court dismissed Faqir ur Rehman's appeal due to lack of substantial evidence against Hussain Ahmad, emphasizing the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal proceedings and the heightened presumption of innocence following an acquittal.Quote: ''When Statement of medical expert is found opposed to other confidence inspiring and reliable evidence then such report may be ignored.''

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005:—-Ss. 3, 4 & 5—Illegal dispossession—Appeal against acquittal—Improper appreciation of evidence—Scope—Where the trial court fails to adequately consider material evidence and relevant documents presented by the complainant, including property ownership documents and government records, acquittal findings cannot be sustained—Acquittal mainly based on the absence of specific date/time of dispossession and general admission regarding long-standing possession by accused is insufficient in law to discard title documents and oral evidence—Trial court’s failure to discuss official witness testimony and key documentary exhibits amounts to misreading and non-reading of evidence—Held, the trial court did not appreciate the material evidence, and findings were not based on sound judicial reasoning.Disposition: Impugned judgment set aside; case remanded for fresh decision on merits after permitting both parties to produce additional evidence.Cited Case: Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):—-S. 417(2-A)—Appeal against acquittal—Principles—Presumption of innocence—Scope—Although an acquitted accused enjoys double presumption of innocence, such benefit is subject to proper judicial application of mind by the trial court—Acquittal must be based on full appreciation of evidence and reasoned analysis—Where trial court omits discussion of key exhibits and witness testimony, presumption of correctness of its findings is weakened.(c) Evidence:—-Appreciation of evidence—Ownership documents—Weight—Permanent transfer orders (PTO), revenue entries (Deh Form-II), and death certificates of the original owner are material and relevant evidence to establish title and unauthorized dispossession—Trial court must analyze such documents before granting acquittal in possession-related disputes under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.----Disposition:Appeal allowed. Acquittal set aside. Case remanded to trial court (5th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing further evidence and cross-examination.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) –----S. 489-F---Dishonoring of cheques---Burden of proof---Essential ingredients---For an offense under Section 489-F, P.P.C., the prosecution must establish that the cheque was issued dishonestly for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation---Appellant-complainant claimed that he sold metallic yarn to the respondent, against which the latter issued seven cheques, all of which were dishonored upon presentation---However, the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence proving the supply of goods or any underlying business transaction---Investigating officer admitted that no such documents were handed over to him during the inquiry---In the absence of evidence substantiating a financial obligation, no offense under Section 489-F, P.P.C. was made out.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –----S. 417(2)---Appeal against acquittal---Presumption of double innocence---Appellant challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 417(2), Cr.P.C., arguing misreading of evidence---However, acquittal judgments carry a presumption of double innocence, and such findings can only be reversed if found unreasonable, perverse, or manifestly erroneous---Trial court’s conclusion, based on lack of evidence proving the alleged obligation, was held to be reasonable and warranted no interference.Cited Case: Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza 2008 SCMR 329(c) Criminal Law-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Conviction requires guilt to be established beyond a reasonable doubt---Where even the slightest doubt arises in favor of the accused, benefit must be extended to him---Respondent’s version, that the cheques were issued in advance for future business transactions and fraudulently presented without delivery of goods, was not effectively disproved by the prosecution---Trial court rightly acquitted the respondents based on insufficiency of evidence.(d) Appellate Review-------Scope of interference in acquittal orders---An acquittal order cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible---Interference is warranted only if the findings are arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence leading to a miscarriage of justice---High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's reasoning, rendering the acquittal immune from interference.----Disposition: Criminal acquittal appeal dismissed; trial court’s decision upheld.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302-B---Conviction for murder---Life imprisonment---Prosecution evidence---Corroboration required for conviction in cases involving enmity---Accused/appellants were charged with firing upon the deceased, causing fatal injuries---Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and an eyewitness, provided consistent testimony regarding the occurrence---Prompt lodging of FIR, recovery of crime weapons, and medical reports corroborated the prosecution case---Accused were arrested immediately in hot pursuit by the police---Held, in cases involving previous enmity, corroborative evidence is required to support eyewitness testimony---Prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence---Conviction and life imprisonment sentence upheld. ----Cited Cases: • Ayaz Gul v. The State (Jail Criminal Appeal No. 863-P/2019) • Feroz Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 1999) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 342---Statements of accused---Burden on accused to rebut prosecution case---Accused pleaded false implication but failed to provide any plausible explanation or evidence in their defense---Medical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and recovery of weapons from the accused at the time of arrest supported the prosecution case---Held, mere denial by the accused is insufficient to dislodge well-established prosecution evidence---Burden shifts to the accused to prove their defense once the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appellants failed to provide any rebuttal, and thus, conviction was justified. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2019 SC 527 (c) Criminal Law---Benefit of Doubt: ----Acquittal of co-accused on benefit of doubt---Effect on prosecution case against convicted accused---Co-accused was acquitted as a measure of abundant caution due to lack of strong corroboratory evidence---Prosecution evidence against the convicted accused, however, was fully supported by medical reports, prompt FIR, eyewitness testimonies, and recovery of weapons---Held, acquittal of one accused on the principle of benefit of doubt does not automatically render the entire prosecution case doubtful---Conviction of appellants upheld as their involvement was proven beyond reasonable doubt. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2019 SC 527 • Ayaz Gul v. The State (Jail Criminal Appeal No. 863-P/2019) (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 544-A---Compensation to legal heirs of deceased---Sentencing discretion---Accused were sentenced to life imprisonment with payment of Rs. 500,000/- compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default of which they had to undergo six months' simple imprisonment---Held, minor weaknesses in the prosecution case, though insufficient for acquittal, were considered in awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty---Supreme Court precedent supports considering such weaknesses in determining the appropriate sentence. ----Cited Cases: • Feroz Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 1999) ----Disposition: Criminal appeal against conviction dismissed. Criminal revision for enhancement of sentence dismissed. Criminal appeal against acquittal of co-accused dismissed.

Summary: The appellant, Muhammad Tariq, filed the case against eight respondents alleging that they trespassed into a house and caused injury to the appellant. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted an affidavit at the bail stage and made statements before the Magistrate indicating a compromise with the respondents. However, the trial court accepted an application filed by the respondents under section 249-A Cr.P.C., based on statements made by the complainant during bail and remand stages, without issuing notice to the appellant. The appeal raises important legal questions regarding the validity of acquitting the accused solely based on statements made during pre-trial stages and whether a person can be acquitted in a non-compoundable offense on the grounds of compromise. The judgment discusses the legal framework concerning the compounding of offenses under section 345 Cr.P.C., distinguishing between compoundable offenses and non-compoundable offenses. It emphasizes that offenses under section 337-A PPC fall under the category of offenses requiring court permission for compounding. Legal precedents such as Tariq Mehmood's Case and Muhammad Akram's Case are cited to illustrate that compromises made during pre-trial stages cannot be accepted without court permission when the prosecution is pending. Furthermore, the judgment highlights the legislative intent behind the bifurcation of compoundable offenses and underscores the need for courts to ensure the genuineness and validity of compromises, particularly in cases involving societal interests or heinous offenses. The judgment concludes that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents based on compromised statements made during pre-trial stages and sets aside the acquittal order, remanding the matter for further trial proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment also emphasizes established legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals, stating that while appellate courts generally refrain from disturbing acquittal orders, they may intervene if the order is patently illegal or based on erroneous considerations.

Summary: Criminal appeal against acquittal.Held: (i) After earning acquittal the accused earns double presumption of innocence and to reverse the same extraordinary circumstances are needed. (ii) In appeal, the jurisdiction conferred upon the appellate court is not limited and restricted and the entire record would be scanned with the only and only purpose to avoid miscarriage of justice.(iii) Had the complainant been present, he would have been the prime target. If we admit that the complainant was fired at and escaped unhurt, then Investigating Officer must have observed bullet marks on the wall, but its absence tells negative of his presence at the time of incident. (vi) The crime empties received to F.S.L with sufficient delay and the prosecution failed to mention that where these empties were lying in the intervening period, so much so neither moharrir of the concerned police station was examined nor the police official who took the same to the laboratory. (Criminal appeal against acquittal dismissed)

Summary: Appeal against acquittal.Held: (i) The delay caused in reporting the matter leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the complainant was not present at the time of incident and that it was after the deceased was done to death his attendance was procured.(ii) Two most important witnesses Mursaleen and Abdul Qayum, who rushed towards the deceased when he received the firearm injuries were not produced by the prosecution.(iii) Two real brothers were charged by the complainant but the laboratory report confirmed that it was the doing of one person.(iv) The medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account.(In the circumstances appeal was dismissed)

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.32, 156(1)(14), 156(1)(86), 156(1)(95-A), 156(1)(96) & 211---Customs Rules, 2001,Rr. 101 & 102---Mis-declaration---Failure to give information regarding offence---Dishonestly issuing a security---Failure to maintain record---Appreciation of evidence---Delayed FIR---Scope---Department assailed the acquittal of respondents by the SpecialJudge Customs---Alleged forgery was committed in the month of July 2008 but the FIR waslodged with a delay of four years---Entire case of the prosecution rested upon GoodsDeclarations and E-Forms, wherein allegedly forgery and tampering was committed by theaccused in their capacity as Exporters/Clearing Agents, but the prosecution had failed toproduce the documents in the trial court in order to establish charges of forgery andtampering---Investigating Officer had admitted that it was the duty the Customs Authoritiesto keep original documents in the office---Non-production of relevant and essentialdocuments in the trial court had rendered the entire case of prosecution as doubtful andnothing was left to make reliance for awarding conviction and sentence to the accused---Prosecution had failed to establish the charge through concrete and solid evidence, whichfact itself was admitted by its own witnesses---Appeals against acquittal were dismissed, incircumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Main purpose of lodging FIR is to setcriminal law in motion and to bring on record firsthand information about the occurrence of acrime and to provide a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right directionexcluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Information in cognizable cases---Delayed FIR---Condonation of delay---Scope---Delay in lodging the FIR can only be condoned when such delay has been adequatelyexplained.(d) Appeal against acquittal-------Once the accused is acquitted of the charge by the Court of competent jurisdiction, doublepresumption of innocence is attached with such order, which cannot be reversed until andunless it is proved that the order of acquittal is perverse, fanciful, capricious or contrary torecord.

Summary: Held: (1) The report was lodged against unknown accused with an inordinate delay. In absence of any plausible explanation, the delay in lodging if FIR was always considered fatal it casted a suspicion on the prosecution story.(2) the chain of events was broken from the very beginning which had gone to the roots of the case.(3) The recoveries/case property was planted, which could not be used as evidence against the accused.(4) conviction must be founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt the arises in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.(5) The positive FSL report could not be taken into consideration being not procured in accordance with law as the prosecution had to ensure safe dispatch of the crime empties and crime weapon to the FSL. Even this piece of evidence is a corroborative one and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.(5) The positive FSL report could not be taken into consideration being not procured in accordance with law as the prosecution had to ensure safe dispatch of the crime empties and crime weapon to the FSL. Even this piece of evidence is a corroborative one and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.(6) Generally, the order of acquittal could not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused was further strengthened by acquittal.(7) of two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.(8) The learned trial court in the impugned judgment had dealt with each and every aspect of the case which being unexceptional could not be interfered with.