Summary: Sentence upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor---FIR initially lodged against unknown accused---Subsequent nomination through supplementary statement---Effect---Minor girl was abducted from a public place by a person riding a motorcycle---Informant initially lodged FIR against unknown accused and gave description of the culprit and motorcycle used in commission of offence---Petitioner was subsequently nominated when witnesses informed the complainant that they had seen the minor in the company of petitioner shortly after the abduction---Held, that non-nomination of petitioner in the FIR, in the peculiar circumstances, reflected bona fides of the informant---Had there been any ulterior motive, ill-will or previous enmity, the informant could have nominated petitioner at the first instance---Subsequent nomination, on the basis of information received from witnesses, was natural and consistent with ordinary human conduct. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Delay in lodging FIR---Explanation furnished---Effect---FIR was lodged with delay of about six hours---Informant explained that after occurrence he remained engaged in searching for the missing child, informing police and making public announcements for tracing her---Held, that delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained---Conduct of informant was natural in the circumstances and did not adversely affect prosecution case. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen evidence---Independent witness---Minor seen with accused shortly after abduction---Evidentiary value---Witness deposed that shortly after abduction he saw petitioner taking the minor towards his house on motorcycle and later saw petitioner in a disturbed condition carrying a bag on motorcycle---Witness was independent and unrelated to complainant or deceased---No previous enmity, motive or ill-will was elicited during cross-examination---Held, that testimony of last seen witness was consistent, confidence-inspiring and worthy of reliance---Close proximity of time between abduction and deceased being seen with petitioner provided strong corroboration to prosecution case. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery-related circumstance---Dead body recovered from bag---Independent witness---Corroborative value---Witness stated that he saw a bag fall from petitioner’s motorcycle and, when petitioner did not stop, the bag was opened and the dead body of the minor was found therein---Witness was independent and no motive for false implication was established---Held, that such testimony materially corresponded with last seen evidence and provided further assurance to prosecution case---Inter se consistency between independent witnesses strengthened the chain of circumstances against petitioner. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 122---Facts especially within knowledge of accused---Last seen theory---Duty to explain---Scope---Where prosecution established that deceased was last seen alive in company of accused, accused was expected to explain how and when he parted company with deceased---Held, that Art.122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not shift the general burden of proof in criminal trial, which remains upon prosecution---However, where facts are especially within knowledge of accused, failure to offer a plausible explanation may constitute an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence---Petitioner’s failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation further strengthened prosecution case. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen theory---Conviction not to be based solely thereon---Requirement of supporting circumstances---Held, that last seen theory is an important link in the chain of circumstances, but conviction cannot rest solely upon such theory---Court must examine the prosecution case as a whole, including circumstances preceding and following the point when deceased was last seen with accused---In the present case, last seen evidence was supported by independent recovery-related evidence, medical evidence and DNA evidence, forming a complete chain against petitioner. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Medical evidence---Sexual assault and murder of minor---Post-mortem examination and forensic sampling---Effect---Medical officer conducted post-mortem examination and secured necessary samples for chemical and forensic analysis---Medical evidence established that the minor had been subjected to sexual assault and thereafter murdered by smothering---Held, that medical evidence materially supported the prosecution version and corroborated other circumstances relied upon against petitioner. (h) Criminal trial--- ----DNA evidence---Scientific evidence---Identity of accused---Sexual offence---PFSA report---DNA profile obtained from samples secured from deceased was found consistent with DNA profile of petitioner---Held, that DNA evidence, due to its scientific accuracy and conclusiveness, is regarded as a strong corroborative piece of evidence, particularly in cases involving sexual offences---DNA report connected petitioner with commission of offence and strongly corroborated prosecution case. Cited Cases: • Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain • Salman Akram Raja case 2013 SCMR 203 • Atif Zareef and others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 550 (i) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Complete chain---Capital sentence---Standard of proof---Held, that conviction, even in cases involving capital punishment, may be based on circumstantial evidence if circumstances form a complete and unbroken chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence---Each circumstance must be independently proved and must be interlinked with other proved circumstances---In the present case, cumulative effect of last seen evidence, recovery-related circumstance, medical evidence and DNA evidence formed a complete chain consistent only with guilt of petitioner and incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Cited Cases: • Khurshid v. The State PLD 1996 SC 305 • Munawar Hussain v. Imran Waseem 2013 SCMR 374 (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 340(2) & 342---Statement of accused---Bare denial---Failure to appear as witness or produce defence evidence---Effect---Petitioner neither appeared as witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced defence evidence---His statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. was a bare denial---Held, that such bare denial, being not on oath and not subject to cross-examination, did not rebut prosecution evidence after prosecution had established a prima facie case through reliable circumstantial and scientific evidence. (k) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Sentence---Death penalty---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor---No mitigating circumstance---Deterrence---Petitioner abducted a minor girl, subjected her to sexual assault and murdered her---Held, that offences were of extreme brutality and no leniency was warranted---Although accused is favourite child of law, Court also owes duty to society and legal heirs of victim---Sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offence and serve as deterrence---Death sentence awarded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court was maintained. Disposition: Jail petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Convictions and sentences awarded by Trial Court under Ss.302(b), 364-A and 376, P.P.C., and confirmed by Lahore High Court, were maintained.

Summary: Sentence upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Kidnapping, rape and murder of minor girl---Circumstantial evidence---Last seen evidence---Sufficiency---Minor deceased aged about 5/6 years was abducted in broad daylight from a bazaar---F.I.R. was initially lodged against an unknown culprit, but accused was later nominated through supplementary statement on information supplied by independent witnesses who had seen the deceased in his company on motorcycle shortly after abduction and later saw accused in perplexed condition loading a bag on his motorcycle---Another independent witness saw a bag fall from accused’s motorcycle in evening hours, and on opening the same found dead body of minor girl inside---Supreme Court held that last seen evidence, when read with subsequent conduct of accused, recovery of dead body, medical evidence and forensic material, constituted a complete and coherent chain of circumstances, consistent only with guilt of accused and incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence---Conviction was rightly maintained. (b) First Information Report---Delay in lodging F.I.R.---Effect---Occurrence took place at about 3:00 p.m. whereas F.I.R. was lodged after about six hours---Informant explained that immediately after abduction he remained busy in tracing abducted child, informed police, and made mosque announcements in nearby localities---Held, delay stood plausibly and satisfactorily explained and, in peculiar circumstances of case, did not detract from prosecution version---Omission to nominate accused in first instance rather reflected bona fides of informant, for had there been prior enmity or ulterior motive, accused could conveniently have been named in F.I.R. itself. (c) Criminal trial---Last seen theory---Scope and evidentiary value---Independent witness saw deceased shortly after abduction in company of accused while accused was taking her inside his house on motorcycle---Same witness later noticed accused near his house in perplexed condition loading a bag on his motorcycle---Another witness subsequently saw bag fall from accused’s motorcycle and dead body of deceased was recovered therefrom---Held, last seen evidence is an important link in chain of circumstantial evidence and may warrant expectation from accused to explain how and when he parted company with deceased---Though conviction cannot rest solely on last seen theory, it may safely be relied upon where prosecution case as a whole furnishes strong corroboration and circumstances preceding and following such sighting point unerringly towards guilt of accused. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)----Art. 122---Fact especially within knowledge of accused---Burden of explanation---Where prosecution by cogent evidence established that minor victim was last seen alive in company of accused, it became incumbent upon accused to explain what transpired thereafter---Held, Art.122 does not shift legal burden of proof from prosecution, but where accused fails to explain facts within his special knowledge, such failure may constitute an additional link in chain of circumstantial evidence---In present case, accused failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation, which further strengthened prosecution case. (e) Medical evidence---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor girl---Proof---Medical officer noticed multiple ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased and found clear signs of recent sexual violence---Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to smothering---Held, medical evidence fully corroborated prosecution case regarding sexual assault upon minor deceased followed by her murder. (f) Forensic science---DNA evidence---Evidentiary value---Punjab Forensic Science Agency report showed that DNA profile obtained from biological samples secured from body of deceased matched DNA profile of accused---Held, DNA evidence, due to its scientific accuracy and conclusiveness, is regarded as gold standard for establishing identity of accused and constitutes one of the strongest corroborative pieces of evidence, particularly in sexual offence cases---Such forensic evidence provided highly incriminating corroboration against accused. Cited Cases: Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain. Salman Akram Raja case 2013 SCMR 203. Atif Zareef and others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 550. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 342 & 340(2)---Statement of accused---Effect of bare denial---Accused neither appeared as witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence---He merely denied prosecution allegations in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Held, bare denial, being not on oath and not tested through cross-examination, does not by itself rebut prosecution evidence or discharge burden arising once prosecution establishes a prima facie case through complete circumstantial chain. (h) Circumstantial evidence---Principles for conviction in capital cases---Held, conviction, even involving capital punishment, may safely be based on circumstantial evidence provided each circumstance is independently proved and all proved circumstances form an unbroken chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence---In present case, chain comprising abduction, last seen evidence, accused’s suspicious conduct, throwing of bag containing dead body, medical evidence and DNA evidence was complete beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: Khurshid v. The State PLD 1996 SC 305. Munawar Hussain v. Imran Waseem 2013 SCMR 374. (i) Sentencing---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Death sentence---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor girl of 5/6 years---Principles---Accused abducted minor girl in daylight from open bazaar, subjected her to brutal sexual violence, murdered her, placed dead body in sack and disposed of it---Held, such acts were brutal and gruesome in extreme and called for no leniency---Sentence must serve purposes of retribution, deterrence and, where possible, reformation, but in case of such heinous offences death sentence was justified to act as deterrent and to protect peace, tranquillity and harmony of society---Convictions and sentences awarded by Trial Court and maintained by High Court were upheld. Disposition: Leave to appeal was refused and jail petition was dismissed; convictions and sentences of death under Ss. 302(b), 364-A and 376, P.P.C., as maintained by the High Court, were upheld. I can also make it even more “website-safe” by replacing “rape and murder” in the headings with “sexual assault and murder” throughout.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 376(1), 364, 342 Conviction and sentencing on basis of circumstantial evidence—Admissibility of digital evidence—Murder and sexual assault of deceased female within premises of petitioner’s house—CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and DNA report unerringly linking petitioner to offense—Prosecution established complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence excluding any hypothesis other than guilt of petitioner—Petitioner failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding presence of deceased in his house or her recovery in dead condition—Both courts below found guilt of petitioner fully established—Supreme Court concurred with concurrent findings—Conviction under S. 302(b) PPC maintained; conviction under S. 376(1) PPC maintained but sentence of death converted to life imprisonment; conviction under S. 364 PPC set aside; conviction under S. 342 PPC maintained. (b) Criminal Trial ----Circumstantial evidence—Scope and application—Court held that conviction may be lawfully founded upon circumstantial evidence provided that it is of unimpeachable character and forms a continuous chain connecting the accused with the crime to the exclusion of all other possibilities—Each link must be cogent and complete to reach the only conclusion of guilt—If any link is broken or explanation remains plausible, benefit of doubt must go to accused—Trial and appellate courts found evidence met required standard, Supreme Court upheld conclusion. Reference: State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873. (c) Evidence—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 46-A, 73 (Explanation 3 & 4), 164 Admissibility and evidentiary value of CCTV footage—Silent Witness theory—Technological evidence admissible as primary evidence when properly authenticated—CCTV footage depicting sequence of crime, including physical assault and later recovery of deceased’s body, considered real-time, unbiased proof—Forensic report confirmed footage was unedited and matched facial identity of accused—Supreme Court reiterated that where digital evidence meets authenticity and relevance requirements, it stands on equal footing with direct eyewitness testimony and requires no corroboration. References: R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59; R. v. Atkin [2009] EWCA Crim 1876; R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 SCR 1197; United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976); United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988). (d) Criminal Law—Sentence ----Capital punishment—Mitigation—Petitioner had gruesomely murdered the deceased by decapitation and inflicted further bodily injuries—Relationship with deceased did not mitigate culpability in light of brutal manner of killing—Supreme Court declined to show any sympathy—However, while maintaining conviction under S. 376(1) PPC, sentence of death converted to life imprisonment—Petitioner’s death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC upheld. (e) Co-accused—Benefit of leniency ----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 342—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B Petitions by co-accused (cook and watchman) allowed in part—While maintaining convictions, Supreme Court took lenient view and reduced sentences to imprisonment already undergone—Co-accused ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (f) Criminal Procedure ----Petitions by complainant—Enhancement of sentence and challenge to acquittal—No ground made out for interference—Supreme Court dismissed petitions and refused leave to appeal. Cited Cases: • State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873 • R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59 • R. v. Atkin and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1876 • R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 • United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976) • United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Law – Post-arrest Appeal – Delay in FIR and Investigation---Criminal appeal—Benefit of doubt—Delay in FIR—Appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 302, 364, 449, and 34 of the PPC—FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of 1 hour and 50 minutes despite complainant's claim of meeting police soon after the incident—Investigating officer failed to disclose how and when he was informed about the crime—No evidence proving an immediate police response—Held, unexplained delay in FIR registration creates suspicion and shatters its sanctity—Reliance placed on Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741).(b) Ocular Testimony – Contradictions Between Eyewitness and Medical Evidence---Eyewitness credibility—Ocular testimony contradicted by post-mortem reports—Complainant and witness claimed injuries to the left side of the victim’s head, but medical examination found no such injury—Conversely, injuries observed on shoulder and other parts were not mentioned by witnesses—Held, when ocular account contradicts medical evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused—Reliance placed on Muhammad Shafi v. The State (2019 SCMR 1045).(c) Rigor Mortis – Conflict Between Time of Death and Medical Evidence---Forensic inconsistencies—Medical reports showed rigor mortis fully developed, indicating death occurred 6-12 hours prior to post-mortem—Crime Report mentioned death at 1:30 a.m., while post-mortem was conducted at 9:00 a.m.—Conflict between stated time of death and forensic findings—Held, such contradictions undermine prosecution’s case—Reliance placed on Asad Rehmat v. The State (2019 SCMR 1156).(d) Chance Witnesses – Failure to Justify Presence at Crime Scene---Witness credibility—All eyewitnesses lived 15-22 km away from the crime scene—No reasonable explanation given for their presence—Prosecution failed to establish why they were at the crime scene at 1:30 a.m.—No efforts were made to contact the deceased by phone—Held, unexplained presence of witnesses renders them chance witnesses, reducing reliability—Reliance placed on Mst. Rukhsana Begum v. Sajjad (2017 SCMR 596).(e) Court Witnesses – Testimony of Family Contradicts Prosecution's Narrative---Independent court witnesses—Court called family members of the deceased (father, mother, and sister) who presented an entirely different version of events—They alleged that different accused persons committed the crime, contradicting the prosecution’s case—Held, prosecution withheld best evidence, creating presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat that their case was fabricated—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507).(f) Recovery of Murder Weapons – Violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C.---Investigative lapses—Weapons recovered 77 to 80 days after the incident—No independent witnesses present at the time of recovery, violating Section 103 Cr.P.C.—Blood-stained weapons allegedly found in the homes of accused, contradicting common sense (i.e., accused had ample time to dispose of them)—Held, recoveries are fabricated and inadmissible—Reliance placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344).(g) Motive – Failure to Prove Illicit Relationship as Reason for Murder---Motive not established—Prosecution alleged that the motive was an illicit relationship between the deceased individuals—No evidence or witness substantiated this claim—Held, failure to prove motive further weakens the case—Reliance placed on Iftikhar Hussain v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449).(h) Acquittal – Prosecution Failed to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt---Failure of prosecution—Multiple discrepancies in FIR, medical evidence, witness statements, and forensic findings—Crime Report contradicted by rigor mortis, absence of independent witnesses, and delayed autopsies—Held, benefit of doubt granted, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).----- Disposition:Criminal appeals accepted – Convictions set aside.Criminal revision for sentence enhancement dismissed.Appellants (Niaz Hussain, Fida Hussain, and Sultan alias Panun) acquitted and released forthwith unless required in another case.---Quote: ''Autopsy and inquest report can be used to depict whether the FIR was ante-dated, with medical and criminal jurisprudence on rigor mortis being a relevant factor as well for this purpose. Effect of any conflict between medical and ocular evidence is assessed, alongwith the intrinsic value and purpose of testimony provided by court witnesses under Section 540 Cr.P.C. The court's authority to presume a fact under Article 129 of QSO and parameters of Section 103 Cr.P.C., as elucidated by a Larger Bench have also been deliberated upon.''

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---Sections 397, 382-B---Concurrence of sentences---Discretionary power of courts---Scope---Petitioner was convicted under three separate FIRs for offenses under Sections 364/34, 324/34, 353, 186, PPC; Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965; and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Sentences included life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for various terms, which were ordered to run consecutively by the lower courts. Held, where multiple convictions arise from the same transaction, courts are expected to exercise discretion under Section 397, Cr.P.C., to order sentences to run concurrently unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise. In the present case, the petitioner was a minor at the time of arrest in 2006 and had served a significant portion of his sentence. The Supreme Court directed all sentences to run concurrently, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., ensuring justice in light of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration and the nature of the offenses. (b) Sentencing principles: ---Leniency for minors---Constitutional and statutory safeguards---Courts are required to exercise discretion favorably for minors unless the facts of the case demand otherwise. The petitioner’s status as a minor and his extensive time in custody warranted the modification of his sentences to run concurrently, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997): ---Section 7---Conviction under ATA alongside other charges---Petitioner’s actions were deemed part of the same transaction involving kidnapping, firing upon police officials, and possession of illegal arms. The Court upheld the convictions under the ATA but ordered that sentences run concurrently, ensuring proportionality and fairness in sentencing. ----Disposition: Petitions allowed to the extent that all sentences shall run concurrently. Convictions and sentences maintained, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. applied.

Summary: Convictions upheld----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Sentencing discretion — Concurrence of sentences: --- S. 397 — Sentences of imprisonment for life or lesser punishments awarded at the same trial or in separate trials — Power of the court to direct sentences to run concurrently — Principle applied particularly in cases involving minors unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Petitioner, a minor at the time of the incident, was convicted in three FIRs arising from a single transaction. Despite the concurrent nature of the offenses, the courts below failed to exercise discretion under S. 397 Cr.P.C., causing prejudice to the petitioner. Supreme Court held that the sentences awarded in all FIRs should run concurrently, providing relief to the petitioner in light of the principles established in Mst. Shahista Bibi v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 15). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Adjustment of sentence duration — Benefit under S. 382-B Cr.P.C: --- S. 382-B — Deduction of period spent in custody before conviction from the substantive sentence. The petitioner was behind bars since 2006 and had nearly served out the substantive sentence for life imprisonment. The benefit under S. 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner, with the Supreme Court affirming the modification of sentences to ensure fairness and justice. (c) Juvenile justice — Consideration for minors in sentencing: --- Juvenile offenders — Courts expected to exercise leniency in cases involving minors unless circumstances demand otherwise. Petitioner was a minor at the time of arrest and had already served a substantial part of the sentence. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a lenient approach in such cases, aligning with precedents emphasizing juvenile rights. (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) — Conviction under multiple sections: --- S. 7 ATA, 1997 read with Ss. 364, 365-A, 324/34 PPC — Sentences of rigorous imprisonment and fines imposed in multiple FIRs — Convictions sustained but sentences modified to run concurrently. The petitioner was convicted under three separate FIRs for offenses involving kidnapping, attack on police, and possession of illegal arms. While the convictions were upheld, the sentences were modified to run concurrently under S. 397 Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Shahista Bibi v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 15) Rahib Ali v. The State (2018 SCMR 418) ----Disposition: Petitions partially allowed. Convictions upheld; sentences modified to run concurrently. Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended.

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 364-A, 365-A & 34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7—Abduction for ransom—Bail—Principles— FIR lodged promptly; abductee aged eleven years abducted for ransom—Ransom amount of Rs.2,500,000 paid and portion thereof recovered from applicant’s house pursuant to his disclosure—Applicant also pointed out the premises where abductee was detained and car used in abduction—Abductee duly identified applicant during Test Identification Parade (TIP) supervised by Judicial Magistrate and again identified him before court—Prima facie reasonable grounds existed to believe applicant’s involvement in abduction for ransom—Bail declined. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1), third proviso (b)—Statutory delay in conclusion of trial—Scope— Record showed that adjournments were sought by both prosecution and defence; delay not solely attributable to prosecution—Statutory period of two years not yet lapsed—Applicant not entitled to bail on that ground but may renew request before Trial Court upon completion of statutory period. (c) Bail—Further inquiry— ----Where evidence establishes ransom payment, recovery of part of ransom, and judicial identification of accused, plea of further inquiry cannot be entertained at bail stage—Deep appreciation of evidence not warranted. (d) Judicial directions—Expeditious trial— ----Trial Court directed to conclude trial within three months and submit compliance to Registrar—Observations made being tentative shall not prejudice merits at trial. (e) Disposition --- Criminal bail application dismissed. Applicant at liberty to seek statutory bail upon fulfillment of conditions under S. 497, Cr.P.C. Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings within three months.

Summary: Conviction upheld----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): —Ss. 364-A, 376(3), 302(b), 201—Abduction, rape, and murder of minor girl—Circumstantial evidence—Last seen theory—Recovery of dead body—Medical and chemical evidence—Standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases. The appellant was convicted under Sections 364-A, 376(3), 302(b), and 201, P.P.C., for abducting, raping, and murdering a seven-year-old girl and concealing her body—The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, recovery of the dead body at the appellant's pointation, medical evidence, and chemical examination reports—The prosecution successfully proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, who was his maternal cousin, shortly before her disappearance—The dead body was recovered from a location exclusively known to the appellant—Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, showing rape and brutal injuries leading to death—The Chemical Examiner's report confirmed the presence of semen and human blood on the victim's body—The appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation or rebut the prosecution's evidence during cross-examination—The circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt—The appellant’s conviction and sentences under the PPC provisions were upheld. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Abid v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 813) Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872) Gul Hassan alias Gulan v. The State (2022 PCr.LJ Note 80) Muhammad Naseem alias Deemi v. The State (2011 SCMR 872) Khuda Bukhsh v. The State (2004 SCMR 331) Sheraz Tufail v. The State (2007 SCMR 518) Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61) -----Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Convictions and sentences under Sections 364-A, 376(3), 302(b), and 201, P.P.C. upheld—Conviction under Section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, set aside as the offence did not meet the criteria of terrorism under Section 6 of the ATA.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Wajtakkar proof is a powerless sort of proof and not trustworthy without some autonomous supportive piece of proof. Opinion of medical examiner is not worthy of reliance regarding the probable time between death and post mortem if apparently his opinion is against the medical jurisprudence.----The case of Muhammad Tariq Nadeem vs. Ehsan Ullah involves the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, who was tried for the murder of Bilal Yasin along with his co-accused, Muhammad Anees Arif. The trial court convicted Ehsan Ullah under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced him to death, rigorous imprisonment, and fines. The facts of the case revolve around the disappearance of Bilal Yasin, who was allegedly taken by the accused from his home. The prosecution presented evidence including last seen testimonies, recovery of the victim's body and belongings, and medical evidence. However, the court found inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's case. Regarding the last seen evidence, the court found the witnesses unreliable and emphasized the weakness of last seen evidence without corroboration. Similarly, the recovery of the victim's body and belongings from open places raised doubts about the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the time of death conflicted with the prosecution's timeline, leading the court to question the reliability of the entire case. In light of the inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's case, the court acquitted Ehsan Ullah of all charges, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The court also did not confirm the death sentence imposed on Ehsan Ullah.

Summary: After receipt of complaint proper course to be adopted by Court concerned is to at once examine the complainant upon oath under Section: 200 Cr.P.C. and then proceed further in accordance with law---Mst. Kaneez Mai filed a complaint under Sections 364-A, 365-A PPC, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging the abduction of her granddaughters at gunpoint and subsequent demands for ransom. The Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, dismissed the complaint after hearing preliminary arguments. The petitioner's counsel argued that the alleged offenses fell within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and that the dismissal of the complaint was unjust. The Assistant Advocate General of Punjab also did not support the impugned order. The court referred to legal provisions regarding the procedure for handling complaints under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It emphasized the requirement for proper examination of the complainant upon oath and the obligation of the court to assess whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The court found that the Anti-Terrorism Court had dismissed the complaint prematurely, without following proper procedure. Therefore, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, for further proceedings in accordance with the law.