Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 10-hours and 20-minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased lost his life and two persons were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence---In column No. 3 of the inquest report, the date and time when police got information about the death was scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 a.m.---Such belated lodging of the crime report shattered the sanctity of the same and reflected that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story---No plausible justification or adequate explanation was furnished by the prosecution for that delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 13 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---It was evinced from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased, that the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020---Medical Officer conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes---Medical Officer admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm---Prosecutor and complainant were unable to point any justifiable reason for the said delay from the entire record---Such unexplained delay in the Post-Mortem Examination of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously access and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence---In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused persons and plant eye-witnesses of the crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Discrepancies in the prosecution case---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---As per record, acquitted co-accused "W" fired with his Kalashnikov at the already fallen deceased, striking him on the left side of his back, on the middle of his back, and on the backside of his left shoulder and the right side of his back---All those injuries inflicted by said acquitted co-accused were declared fatal shots by Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy of the deceased---Said acquitted co-accused repeatedly fired his rifle at one of the injured persons, hitting him near the umbilicus and on his right ribs---Said injured in his examination-in-chief had not assigned any role to said acquitted co-accused "W" of causing any firearm injury to the deceased and consequently the Trial Court acquitted him of the charge---Likewise to the extent of acquitted co-accused "W", whose attribution of injuries was substituted by the complainant in paragraph No. 4 of the private complaint, such discrepancies were detrimental to the prosecution's case, primarily affecting the credibility of the evidence presented---Appellants' case was grounded on the same evidence and the roles assigned to them were similar to those of the co-accused who were acquitted---Sudden shift in the Court's findings, based on essentially the same facts, coupled with the modifications in the verdict, compelled to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution to the extent of present appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the statement of the injured witnesses were recorded by First Investigating Officer on 03.08.2020, two days after the lodging of FIR and on 04.08.2020, three days after the lodging of FIR, respectively---Said material aspect of the prosecution's case regarding the delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., not only diminished the evidentiary value of their statements but also raised a reasonable doubt concerning the mode of injuries they received, especially when their Medico Legal Examination Certificate showed that they were conscious at the time of admission in the THQ Hospital---Unexplained delay of one or two days in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be detrimental and testimony of such witnesses should be taken with a pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of three months and 29 days in filing the complaint---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the complainant of the case being dissatisfied with the police investigation, while changing the prosecution version, filed a private complaint on 30.11.2020 with the delay of almost 03 months and 29 days of the occurrence---Complainant had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning that the private complaint had been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others PLD 2003 SC 14 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Ipse dixit of police---Scope---Ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts, yet it can be considered if it is found on some cogent and convincing evidence. Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 and Sajjad Hussain v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1540 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant at the spot not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---According to the prosecution's account, the complainant of the case, along with his companions, allegedly escorted the deceased and the injured persons to the Civil Hospital---However, complainant was not listed as a witness of the identification of the dead body in the inquest report---Furthermore, if complainant was present at the hospital, the question aroseas to why he did not identify deceased's dead body at the time of the Post-Mortem Examination---Such inconsistency led to conclude that the complainant was not present at the time and place of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recoveries of crime weapons on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the appellants were arrested on 26.08.2020, who led to the recoveries on the basis of disclosures made by them on 07.09.2020---As per record, from one appellant, a 223-bore rifle along with four live bullets was recovered from another appellant, 222-bore rifle along with two live bullets was recovered from another appellant, rifle along with three live bullets was recovered; and a rifle along with five live bullets were recovered from acquitted accused, which were deposited to the office of Forensic Science Agency on 14.09.2020 for comparison with the crime empties already secured from the place of occurrence---Firearm and Toolmarks Examination Report in that regard was negative---Consequently, the evidentiary value of those recoveries remained inconclusive and could not be regarded as substantive proof---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Prosecution specifically alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a previous enmity between the parties---Alleged motive rested solely on the oral assertion of the complainant as no corroborative evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate its claim---Prosecution is not obligated to prove motive in every murder case but it is equally established that once the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it assums the burden of proving it---Failure to discharge that burden operates to the detriment of the prosecution, not the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Muhammad Mushtaq Chaudhry, Iftikhar Ahmad Bittu, Irfan Riaz Gondal, Ch. Zulfiqar Abrar, Mustansar Nazar Ghagh and Mohsin Raza Bhatti for Appellants. Ijaz Ahmad Pannu, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Barrister Salaman Safdar, Barrister Hamza Shehram Sarwar and Asad Zaman Tarrar for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2025. judgment Muhammad Jawad Zafar, J .--- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 80283 of 2022 filed by Khitab Ullah, Muhammad Azhar, Muhammad Asif, Shahzad Mehmood and Muhammad Amir against their convictions and sentences, Criminal P.S.L.A. No. 80831 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) and Criminal Revision No. 80810 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) for enhancement of sentence, whereas Murder Reference No. 321 of 2022 has also been transmitted by learned Trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentences of Khitab Ullah and Muhammad Azhar, appellants under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Code" or "Cr.P.C"), all the matters being originated from the same judgment dated 12.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala ("Trial Court") in the private complaint (Exh.PC) under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 and 149 P.P.C emanated from case FIR No.664 dated 01.08.2020, under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, Gujranwala whereby, at the conclusion of the trial in the said case, the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused persons Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Khitab Ullah son of Muhammad Waris:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced to ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Azhar son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000 in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali: ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Shahzad Mehmood son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat Ali:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is extended in favour of the accused persons. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the Trial Court reads as under: "On 01.08.2020 at 07:00 am, the complainant (Pw.3) along with Muhammad Arshad brother (since given up), Muhammad Hashim son of Muhammad Arshad (injured Pw.4), Muhammad Amir (deceased), Muhammad (injured Pw.5) both sons of Qamar, Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) son of complainant, went to Eid-Gaah situated on the north-western side of the village to offer Eid-Prayer. People from the village including Muhammad Waris (accused) along with his relatives were also present there for Eid-Prayer. After Eid-Prayer, at about 07:45 am, Muhammad Waris along with his relatives went to the village, whereas, the complainant party went to the graveyard, adjacent to the Eid-Gaah, to offer Fateh-Khawani for their deceased persons. After Fatch-Khawant, the complainant party left the graveyard and were going towards the village. Muhammad Nadeem (injured Pw.5) was boarded on his motorcycle GAL-8550, Honda 125, Model 2020 (PS), Muhammad Hashim (injured Pw.4) and Muhammad Amir (deceased) were boarded on motorcycle Metro 70-CC (P-6) Model 2020, Applied for. Amir was driving the motorcycle, while Hashim sitting on its rear seat, were going slowly towards the village, ahead of the complainant, Arshad and Hamza Mukhtar who were following them on foot. When, at about 08:30 am, the complainant party reached near the house of Kashif son of Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Waris armed with kalashnikov, Muhammad Asif armed with kalashnikov, Khitabullah armed with kalashnikov, Azhar Mehmood armed with rifle, Shahzad armed with rifle, Amir armed with rifle and Waseem armed with rifle, all present in court with their mutual consultation, already present at the old DERA of Muhammad Waris, suddenly, emerged from there on the mettled road and blocked their passage. Accused Muhammad Waris raised a lalkara not to let Muhammad Amir and others alive. On this, Khitabullah made a straight burst with his kalashnikov to Amir which hit him on left side of his neck, on the different parts of his chest and on the left side of his face. Amir fell down from his motorcycle. Muhammad Waris made a burst with his kalashnikov on the person of Muhammad Amir who was already fallen on the ground which hit on left side of Amir's back, on the middle of his back, on the back side of his left shoulder and on the right side of his back. Azhar son of Mehmood made repeated fire shots with his rifle which hit on the right side of abdomen of Amir and on his left flank. Shahzad son of Mehmood made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the front of right thigh of Hashim. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the-front of Hashim's left thigh. Waseem son of Nasar made repeated fire shots with his rifle on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his belly near his hila and on his right ribs. Accused Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali made fires with his firearm weapon on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his left arm, right thigh and left leg. Accused persons while making firing and raising lalkaras fled away from the spot. The complainant along with his companions took Muhammad Nadeem, Hashim and Amir to the civil hospital Nowshera Virkan on two private vehicles. Muhammad Amir succumbed to the injuries on the way. Besides the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Nadeem (injured/PW.5), Hashim (injured/PW.6). Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) and Muhammad Arshad. The complainant along with Hamza Mukhtar and Muhammad Arshad witnessed the occurrence while taking shelter of the street and saved their lives. Motive behind the occurrence is their previous enmity with accused Muhammad Waris and others due to which they omitted the occurrence. While leaving Abdul Aziz and Mehboob am with the dead body of Amir, the complainant went to P.S Tat lay Aali, for registration of FIR......" 3. After recording cursory statements of the complainant and PWs, the appellants and acquitted co-accused were summoned to face trial. Learned trial court, after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, framed charge under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F3, 337-F6, 148 and 149 P.P.C against the appellants along with their acquitted co-accused on 18.06.2021, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 16 PWs and 03 witnesses were examined as CWs. Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case, testified as PW-3; Muhammad Hashim, injured witness, appeared as PW-4; Muhammad Nadeem, injured witness, deposed as PW-5; Hamza Mukhtar, eye-witness of the occurrence, testified as PW-6; Naveed Akhtar ASI who registered the FIR (Exh.PA/1) through computer operator on the basis of written complaint (Exh.PA) submitted by the complainant (PW-3) appeared as PW-1; Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema, medical officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of Muhammad Amir, deceased, at THQ hospital Nowshera Virkan and issued his postmortem report (Exh.PP) with pictorial diagrams comprising of two pages (Exh.PQ/1-2) appeared as PW-8; Adeel Ahmad 1929/C, recovery witness of 223-bore rifle (P.10) along with four live rounds (P.11/1-4) which were taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PV), appeared as PW-9; Ibrar Ahmad JFS, who collected eighteen cartridge cases and three deformed bullets from the place of occurrence, appeared as PW-10; Zahid 128/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, attested recovery memos (Exh.PD and Exh.PE) containing blood stained clothes of injured PWs (P1-P4) and attested the recovery memo (Exh.PL) containing lead bullet along with last worn clothes of the deceased (P7-P9), appeared as PW-11; Muhammad Awais 2754/C, the recovery witness of rifle 222-bore (P.12) along with two live bullets (P.13/1-2) taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PW) appeared as PW-12; Muhammad Khalid SI, who collected 13 crime empties of kalashnikov and one crime empty of rifle 222-bore from the crime scene and presented the same to Javed Chaudhary SI, first investigating officer of the case (CW-2), appeared as PW-13; Ahsanullah 2762/C, witness of recovery proceedings, who attested the recovery memo (Exh.PX) regarding the recovery of rifle (P.14) along with three live rounds (P.15/1-3) from the possession of accused Shahzad by the I.O appeared as PW-15; Ikramullah 3899/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, he attested the recovery memo (Exh.PY) regarding the recovery of rifle 223-bore (P.16) along with five live bullets (P.17/1-5) from the possession of the accused Waseem Nasar by the I.O, appeared as PW-16; Tariq Mehmood SI, second investigation officer, appeared as CW-1; Javed Chaudhary, first investigation officer, appeared as CW-2 and Akhlaq Ahmad ASI who prepared injury statements (Exh.PS and Exh.PU) regarding the injuries on the persons of injured PWs Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) and Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) appeared as CW-3. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution were formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Zufiqar Ali 69/C PW and Ijaz Ahmad 291/C PW being unnecessary and after tendering the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore ("PFSA") (Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Report (Exh.PAA), Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PBB) and Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PCC)) closed its evidence. 4. Thereafter the statements of the appellants and their co-accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. The appellants neither opted to appear as their own witnesses on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in disproof of the allegation levelled against them, nor produced any defence evidence except accused Muhammad Waris, who tendered attested copy of FIR No.50/04, dated 18.02.2004, under section 302 P.P.C, P.S Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala (Exh.DJ) and attested copy of FIR No.335/05, under sections 302, 429, 148 and 149 P.P.C read with sections 6 and 7 ATA, dated 04.05.2005, P.S Satellite Town, Gujranwala (Exh.DK) as his defence evidence. 5. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.11.2022 found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, acquitted their co-accused namely Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar through the same judgment by extending them the benefit of doubt, hence, the Criminal Appeal, Criminal P.S.L.A., Criminal Revision and connected Murder Reference before us. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant meticulously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance. 7. It emerges from wade through the record that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased namely Amir lost his life, Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) and Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. According to column No. 3 of the inquest report (Exh.PN), the date and time when police got information about the death is scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 am. Such belated lodging of the Crime Report (Exh.PA/1) shatters the sanctity of the same and reflects that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story, as no plausible justification or adequate explanation is furnished by the prosecution for this delay. 8. Along the same lines, it evinces from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased (Exh.PP), the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020. Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema (PW-8) conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes. He admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application (Exh.PO) to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm. The relevant excerpt of his cross-examination is infra: "I conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Amir on the written application (Ex.PO) su

Summary: Background: Impugned before us is the judgment dated 03.08.2022, rendered by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court in Criminal Appeals No. 15 & 16 of 2017. The appeals concern a land dispute that escalated into a violent altercation resulting in the death of Naheed Fatima. -----Issues: The primary issues revolve around the conviction of the convict-appellant, including murder (Section 302), as well as the sentencing under the principles of 'Diyat' and 'Tazir'. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed the appeal of the convict-appellant, affirming his conviction under Section 302, PPC, and altered the sentence from 14 years' imprisonment to death under Section 302(b), PPC. The Court upheld the conviction for other related offenses under Sections 324, 336, 201, and 203, PPC. The prosecution successfully presented ocular, circumstantial, and corroboratory evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, which established the guilt of the appellant. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif vs. The State, [NLR 2012 Criminal 451] Muhammad Abdullah Khan vs. The State, [2001 SCMR 1775] Zahid Rehman vs. The State, [PLD 2015 SC 77] Syed Kamran Hussain Shah vs. State, [2022 SCR 365]

Summary: Bail denied --- ---Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail due to the statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial, notwithstanding his alleged involvement in the delays.----Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.----Reasoning:The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had previously filed three post-arrest bail petitions, all of which were dismissed. The Court found that the petitioner's conduct indicated intentional delays in the trial process, particularly through repeated adjournments sought by his side, despite the presence of prosecution witnesses.The Court emphasized that bail on the ground of statutory delay requires an examination of whether the delay was caused by the accused or someone acting on his behalf. It concluded that the High Court had correctly appreciated the case's material aspects and that the petitioner's counsel could not point out any significant legal or factual errors in the impugned order.Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's appeal for post-arrest bail based on statutory delay, especially given the evidence of his involvement in delaying the trial process. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

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: If there is a delay in lodging the FIR and no exegesis qua such delay in registration of crime report is given, manifests that the same was got lodged after due deliberation and consultation. If ocular account is not synchronized with the medical evidence, the case of petitioner squarely falls within the remit of further inquiry as stipulated under Sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. .. Fracture of small portion on the mesial side of tooth cannot be termed as "itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i- udw" (336 PPC). Wrong incorporation of parentage of accused in the crime-report takes the case within the precincts of further inquiry..??..While deciding the bail application, benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. If the case of petitioner falls within the definition of inquisitiveness then mere commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail. Mere heinousness of offence could not impede release of accused on bail if otherwise his guilt calls for further probe. Similarly, bail could not be withheld as a strategy for punishment. Bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever required to be produced ---- Crl. Misc. application (No. 45861-B of 2022) for post-capture bail. Waqas alias Khuda sought bail in connection with a case (FIR No. 1062/2022) registered at P.S Shahdara, District Lahore, under Sections 354, 506, 336, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) PPC. The petitioner was accused of assaulting the complainant on 19.04.2022.The judge, Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Goraya, heard arguments from both sides on 05.09.2022. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had struck her with a brick, causing injuries. However, the judge noted a delay in filing the FIR and discrepancies in the complainant's account. The judge also observed inconsistencies between the complainant's description of the incident and the medical evidence.The judge, after examining the medical report, questioned the severity of the injuries and whether they amounted to the offense under Section 336 PPC. The judge cited relevant case laws and concluded that the petitioner's case requires further inquiry, and the offense under Section 336 PPC may not be applicable.Furthermore, the judge highlighted inaccuracies in the crime report, specifically regarding the petitioner's parentage. Considering the uncertainties and doubts raised during the hearing, the judge granted post-arrest bail to Waqas alias Khuda. The bail was subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judge emphasized that the observations made were tentative and strictly confined to the disposal of the bail petition. The petitioner had been in custody since 26.04.2022, and the judge concluded that his continued detention would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law – Acquittal Due to Doubtful Prosecution Case: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 336, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Where prosecution evidence contains glaring contradictions, discrepancies, and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Victim's medical report contradicted her own version of how injuries were sustained—Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and did not align with medical findings—Failure to comply with legal requirements, such as framing a proper charge or confronting the accused with all incriminating evidence under S. 342, Cr.P.C., vitiates the trial—Reliance placed on Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730), Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186), Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374). (b) Contradictory Evidence – Impact on Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164 & 342 – Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 336, 365-B, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on crucial aspects of the case—Victim claimed injuries were inflicted with an iron rod, while medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a road traffic accident—Witnesses’ statements during trial were at variance with their statements recorded under S. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C.—Failure to confront the accused with all material evidence in his S. 342 statement violated the principles of a fair trial—Benefit of doubt granted to the accused—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574). (c) Delay in Lodging FIR – Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) FIR lodged 28 hours after the alleged abduction without any plausible explanation—Unexplained delay in FIR registration raises presumption of afterthought, deliberation, and false implication—Delayed FIRs weaken the prosecution case unless properly justified—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428). (d) Independent Witness Requirement – Failure to Associate Neutral Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version—All witnesses were related and interested, with no neutral corroboration—Prosecution’s failure to secure independent testimony supports inference of manipulation—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574), The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – Benefit of Doubt to Accused: ---- Islamic and Common Law Principles of Criminal Justice Burden lies on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—If contradictions, inconsistencies, or gaps exist in the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused—Islamic principles emphasize that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to punish one innocent—Reliance placed on Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374), Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730) Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186) Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374) Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408)

Summary: Life Imprisonment/Anti-Terrorism Act----Upheld---The appellant had been convicted under section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with section 7(c) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, for splashing acid on the victim's body inside a mosque. The incident resulted in the victim sustaining multiple burn wounds.The appellant argued that his conviction was based on weak evidence, specifically citing the absence of a test identification parade. He contended that the victim's identification of him as the assailant was not reliable due to the lack of such a parade. The appellant also questioned the lack of motive and argued that there was no reason for him to commit the crime.After considering the case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the absence of a test identification parade was fatal to the prosecution's case. The court noted that the victim had directly identified the appellant as the assailant during the trial, despite extensive burn injuries that might have initially incapacitated him. The court found this identification to be credible and therefore concluded that a test identification parade was unnecessary.The court also dismissed the argument about motive, stating that motive is not an essential element of the crime. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but set aside the conviction under section 7(c) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. The appeal was partly allowed.

Summary: Bail Before Arrest---Allowed--They sought pre-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 375/2020 dated 09.07.2020, registered under Sections 336, 337-A(i), 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin, District Mandi Bahauddin.The petitioners were accused of trespassing into the complainant's house, armed with weapons, and assaulting the inmates, resulting in injuries to the complainant and his brothers. They were booked in a cross-version recorded on 12.07.2020, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, granted them pre-arrest bail through a well-reasoned order dated 15.08.2020. However, the complainant challenged the bail order before the Lahore High Court, and the learned Single Judge recalled the bail on 04.11.2020.The petitioners argued that the bail order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was well-reasoned, and they had not misused the concession of bail. They contended that the considerations for granting bail and its cancellation were entirely different, and the High Court's decision lacked valid reasons for the recall.On the other hand, the learned Law Officer, assisted by the complainant's counsel, defended the High Court's order, claiming that the bail granting order was against the law and the facts and justified the recall.The Supreme Court examined the record and referred to guidelines for bail cancellation. It noted that the petitioners had not violated any conditions warranting bail cancellation. The Court emphasized that strong and exceptional grounds were necessary to cancel bail and that mere levelling of accusations without evidence should not infringe an accused person's liberty. It observed that the High Court did not adequately address the grounds on which bail was granted.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners were admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.200,000 each with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Summary: Sec. of Law: Sections 336,336(b), 337-L, 34 PPC r/w sec. 154 & 174 CrPC.a) While construing sec. 174-A of Cr.PC a purposive approach should be adopted instead of adopting the literal rule of construction.b) Sec. 174-A of Cr.PC has not been mandatory, same is rather a directory provision of law & its non-compliance would not initiate the report of a crime otherwise lodged u/s 154 Cr.PC. ---- The legal analysis delved into the nature of the charges under section 336 PPC, which pertains to "itlaf-i-salahiyyati-i-udw" or causing permanent impairment to the functioning, power, or capacity of an organ of another person, leading to permanent disfigurement. The court emphasized specific allegations against the petitioner, noting that he had thrown stones, resulting in a serious injury to Mst. Saima Bibi's left eye.The court referred to medical reports, particularly the opinion of the Ophthalmologist, which indicated a significant decrease in sight and power of vision. Notably, the judgment invoked legal precedent, citing "Muhammad Sarfaraz vs the State and others" (2017 SCMR 364), which highlighted the severity of injuries causing partial loss of vision and affirmed the permanent nature of such damage.The judge carefully weighed the evidence and legal arguments, concluding that the petitioner, given the specific and serious nature of the charges, was not entitled to the concession of bail under the circumstances. The legal depth of the analysis considered both the statutory framework and relevant case law, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's application

Summary: Conviction upheld----In the case of Farooq Shah vs. State, heard at the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court (PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 713 DB), the appellant, was convicted under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The charges were related to the appellant throwing acid on the victim, Mst. Shaista Bibi, causing severe burn injuries. The court noted that both the complainant, Ashiq Hussain, and the victim, Shaista Bibi, sustained acid burn injuries, supporting their presence at the crime scene. The prosecution argued that Farooq Shah had a motive, as he had previously demanded Shaista Bibi's hand in marriage, which was refused by the complainant. The court considered the medical evidence, including the detailed examination by Dr. Allah Bakhsh and Lady Dr. Madiha Wasim, who highlighted the extensive burns on both victims. The judgment also discussed the legal aspects, emphasizing that the term "corrosive substance" in Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code has a broad interpretation, encompassing any substance that may cause harm to the human body. The court rejected the appellant's defense of false implication and affirmed the trial court's decision. Farooq Shah was sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fines and compensation, under concurrent sentences. Additionally, the court touched upon the significance of the site plan, considering it as not a substantive piece of evidence, but a tool that could be challenged if proved to be prepared on the pointation of witnesses. The injuries were deemed to fall under the third schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, justifying the application of the Act in this case. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and sentence of Farooq Shah based on the evidence presented, including medical reports and witness testimonies.