Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b) & 302(c)---Murder---Single firearm shot in sudden quarrel---No premeditation---Case falling within ambit of clause (c)---Held, though prosecution proved actus reus through confidence-inspiring ocular and supporting medical evidence, attending circumstances showed occurrence took place on spur of the moment without prior planning; conviction under S.302(b) converted to S.302(c); sentence modified accordingly. (b) Criminal trial ----Ocular account---Related witnesses---Credibility---Complainant father and paternal uncle of deceased as eye-witnesses---Occurrence in broad daylight---Accused co-villager known to witnesses---Cross-examination failed to shake testimony---Held, mere relationship not a ground to discard evidence where presence is natural, statements are consistent on material particulars and inspire confidence; substitution of real offender with innocent person by close relatives treated as highly improbable. (c) Medical evidence ----Postmortem---Corroboration---Single firearm entry wound on chest with corresponding exit---Injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature---Held, medical evidence materially supported ocular account and reinforced reliability of prosecution witnesses. (d) Motive and forensic recovery ----Motive---Non-proof---Effect---FSL report and ballistic linkage---Transmission defect (empties and weapon sent together)---Held, non-proof of motive and inconsequential forensic linkage did not dent trustworthy ocular and medical evidence regarding occurrence, but were treated as mitigating circumstances while considering quantum of punishment. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 342 & S. 340(2)---Defence plea---Accidental discharge by others; shop allegedly closed; accused claimed he helped shift injured---Defence evidence produced at trial stage---Held, defence plea was belated and unsupported by contemporaneous assertion during investigation; defence witnesses never approached IO or higher authorities; site plan showing blood recovery inside shuttered portion of accused’s shop contradicted plea that shop was closed; defence treated as afterthought and rightly discarded. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(c)---Scope---Judicial discretion---Clause (c) intended to cover cases earlier falling under exceptions to old S.300 read with old S.304---Held, determination under S.302(c) is case-specific; where homicide occurs without premeditation in sudden fight/heat of passion and without undue advantage or cruel/unusual manner, it falls within clause (c) (aligned with Exception 4 to old S.300). Cited Cases: • Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another PLD 1996 SC 274 • Azmat Ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1178 • Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 Disposition: Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2022 was partly allowed; conviction under section 302(b) PPC was converted to conviction under section 302(c) PPC and sentence modified to twenty years rigorous imprisonment; compensation and sentence in default remained intact; benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. granted. Criminal Appeal No.504 of 2022 for enhancement became infructuous and was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – S. 302(b) – Qatl-e-Amd –– Dying Declaration –– Ocular Testimony –– Death Sentence Confirmed Accused was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC for the murder of Umair Sarwar and sentenced to death with compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C.––The incident occurred in broad daylight, witnessed by Muhammad Usman (PW-12), the deceased’s cousin––Deceased returned to his father in injured condition and clearly named the accused, constituting a dying declaration––Dying declaration held credible as it was made without influence, immediately after the occurrence, and in a conscious state––Held, dying declaration before a private person (father of deceased) is admissible and carries substantial weight––Ocular account of eyewitness supported by medical evidence and recovery of weapon––Prosecution’s case corroborated by (i) postmortem showing firearm injury leading to death due to ruptured lung and liver, (ii) recovery of 30-bore pistol at accused's instance, (iii) ballistic report matching crime empty with weapon, and (iv) positive human blood match with earth sample at scene––No contradiction or material omission found in prosecution evidence despite cross-examination––Conviction upheld––Death sentence confirmed. ----Relied on: Muhammad Saeed & another v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1421 Ijaz Ahmad v. The State, 2009 SCMR 99 Muhammad Latif v. The State, PLD 2008 SC 503 (b) Evidence –– Related Witnesses –– Interested Witness Rule –– Scope and Caution: Mere relationship of witness with the deceased does not render testimony untrustworthy––Witnesses must be shown to have motive for false implication to be deemed interested––Held, Muhammad Usman (eyewitness) and Ghulam Sarwar (father of deceased) deposed truthfully with no material contradiction––Their relationship did not discredit them in absence of animus––Ocular testimony was consistent, natural, and confidence-inspiring. ----Cited Cases: Sharafat Ali v. The State, 1999 SCMR 329 Saeed Akhtar v. The State, 2000 SCMR 383 Sheraz Tufail v. The State, 2007 SCMR 518 (c) Criminal Law –– Circumstantial Evidence –– Forensic Corroboration –– Ballistic and Blood Reports: Recovery of 30-bore pistol at accused’s instance––Matched with crime empty through positive NFSA report (Ex. PT)––Blood-stained earth from the scene matched human blood per PFSA Lahore report (Ex. PU)––Medical evidence (Ex. PR, PS) consistent with prosecution narrative––Deceased received chest shot, declared dead within minutes––Held, forensic reports corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence––Conviction supported beyond doubt. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 340(2) –– Statement of Accused –– Burden of Rebuttal –– Failure to Present Defence: Accused denied allegations in statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C but neither opted to testify under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C nor produced defence evidence––Held, mere denial without evidence does not rebut prosecution's case, especially when unshaken by cross-examination––Trial Court rightly discarded bald denial. ----Disposition: Jail Appeal No. 460 of 2023: Dismissed. Murder Reference No. 27 of 2023: Answered in the affirmative. Death sentence confirmed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 302(b), 342, 340(2) ---- Conviction for multiple murders ---- Duty of prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ---- Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under S. 302(b) PPC for the murder of three individuals and sentenced to death on three counts, with compensation to the legal heirs of each deceased ---- The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court ---- Appellant’s plea of innocence and non-examination under S. 340(2) Cr.P.C. did not mitigate the weight of prosecution evidence ---- Held, prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt through direct evidence, including eyewitness testimony and motive, thereby justifying the conviction. (b) Right to Appeal ---- ---- Jail appeal ---- Condonation of delay ---- Duty of Jail Authorities to facilitate appeal ---- Appellant filed a delayed jail petition challenging his conviction and sentence ---- Under Rule 90 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1894, it was the duty of the Superintendent Jail to inform the appellant of his right to appeal and facilitate timely filing ---- No evidence on record showed that the appellant was informed of his right or that he had expressed any waiver of appeal ---- Supreme Court, relying on precedents Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State (1985 SCMR 72) and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 287), condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the appellant, being in death cell, was unaware of legal technicalities. (c) Administration of Justice ---- ---- Fair trial ---- Safe administration of criminal justice ---- Leave to appeal granted to examine the entire evidence in the interest of justice ---- The Supreme Court emphasized that technicalities should not impede the right to a fair trial, particularly in cases involving capital punishment ---- Appellant’s conviction and sentence were reviewed to ensure due process and compliance with procedural safeguards. ----Disposition: Delay in filing appeal condoned. Appeal admitted for hearing to examine the entire evidence in light of the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law—Illegal Detention and Fair Trial: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 4, 9, & 10-A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 340(2) Illegal detention—Right to a fair trial—Failure to produce independent witnesses—Burden on prosecution. The accused-petitioner alleged that he was illegally detained for two months before being falsely implicated in a terrorism-related offense. The Supreme Court observed that the accused presented a contemporaneous newspaper report dated 21.07.2014, which corroborated his claim of being arrested on 20.07.2014, two months before the incident recorded in the FIR dated 02.09.2014. The prosecution failed to refute this claim with any independent evidence, thereby raising serious doubts about the credibility of the police case. The Court reaffirmed that illegal detention by law enforcement agencies is a grave violation of fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution, and any conviction arising from such detention is tainted with illegality and cannot be sustained. (b) Anti-Terrorism Laws—Possession of Explosives and Standard of Proof: ----Explosive Substances Act, 1908, S. 5; Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7 Possession of explosives—Requirement of credible evidence—Burden of proof on prosecution. The accused was convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for possessing 17 detonators and wire without lawful justification. The Supreme Court noted that no independent witnesses were produced, and the prosecution relied solely on police officials as witnesses, without corroboration from neutral sources. The arrest location and the vehicle details were omitted from the prosecution’s case, further weakening the credibility of the alleged recovery. The Court reiterated that in cases involving possession of explosives, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had both knowledge and intent to use the material unlawfully. Failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. (c) Judicial Evaluation of Defence Evidence: ----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 340(2); Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 122 Accused’s defence—Documentary evidence—Duty of court to evaluate exculpatory material. The accused-petitioner, during his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement, presented a contemporaneous newspaper article as evidence of his prior arrest and illegal detention. The Supreme Court emphasized that when an accused presents documentary evidence suggesting wrongful detention or fabrication of charges, the courts must thoroughly scrutinize such material instead of dismissing it outright. The newspaper article corroborated the accused’s claim, and the prosecution failed to counter this evidence, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. (d) Importance of Independent Witnesses in Criminal Trials: ----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 103; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to produce independent witnesses—Adverse inference against prosecution. The entire prosecution case relied on police witnesses, without testimony from independent witnesses such as the bus driver, conductor, or passengers, despite the alleged recovery taking place at a public transport checkpoint. The failure to cite or summon independent witnesses led the Supreme Court to apply adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, against the prosecution. The Court held that when independent witnesses are available but deliberately withheld, it raises a presumption that their testimony would not have supported the prosecution’s case. (e) Burden on the Prosecution to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 10-A; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 117 & 119 Presumption of innocence—Burden of proof—Prosecution’s duty to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reiterated that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence linking the accused to terrorism or explosive possession, and the possibility of false implication due to illegal detention could not be ruled out. The Court emphasized that when two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. -----Disposition: The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Anti-Terrorism Court and the Lahore High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ---Ss. 6/9-C, 14/15--- Possession of narcotics---Failure to establish safe custody and safe transmission of contraband---Acquittal based on benefit of doubt--- The appellants, convicted of possessing 25 kg of charas, were acquitted by the High Court due to the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics from recovery to chemical analysis. Contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of clarity on the Malkhana in-charge, and discrepancies in the handling of evidence rendered the chain of custody unproven. Without reliable forensic evidence, the chemical report was deemed inadmissible. ----Cited Cases: State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State (2019 SCMR 1300) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.): ---Ss. 342, 340(2)--- Defence evidence supporting plea of false implication---Impact on prosecution's case--- The appellants produced credible defence witnesses who testified to their arrest under unrelated circumstances, corroborated by an N.C. report filed prior to the alleged narcotics recovery. The prosecution failed to challenge the defence evidence, further weakening its case. ----Cited Cases: Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326) (c) Evidence: ---Chain of custody---Requirement for unimpeachable evidence--- The prosecution’s inability to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized contraband was fatal to its case. The court reiterated that safe custody and transmission are pivotal for the credibility of the chemical examiner's report, and any lapse renders the report unreliable. ----Cited Cases: Qaiser and another v. The State (2022 SCMR 1641) Zahir Shah alias Shat v. The State (2019 SCMR 2004) (d) Benefit of Doubt: ---Presumption of innocence---Single reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal--- The appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof. The rule of caution, rooted in jurisprudence and Islamic principles, mandates that a single doubt warrants acquittal as a matter of right. ----Cited Cases: Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ayub Masih v. State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 367Judgment---Mandatory contents---Failure to address specific charges---Effect---Trial court’s judgment convicting appellant under Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), and 337-D, P.P.C., and acquitting co-accused under same FIR was set aside and case remanded due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements of S. 367, Cr.P.C.—Trial court failed to clarify whether accused was acquitted or convicted under S. 302, P.P.C., despite its inclusion in the charge, and omitted any reference to S. 34, P.P.C. (common intention) while convicting and acquitting different accused persons—Judgment lacking specification of charges, points for determination, findings, and reasons held to be legally unsustainable.Irfan v. Muhammad Yousaf 2016 SCMR 1190 and Bashir Ahmed v. The State 2022 SCMR 1187 relied upon.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 337-D & 34Criminal trial---Common intention---Failure to determine liability under S. 34, P.P.C.---Remand---Despite framing of charges including S. 302/34, P.P.C., trial court did not assign any finding regarding the applicability of S. 34, P.P.C. while convicting one accused and acquitting others—Held, it was the bounden duty of the trial court to clearly address common intention where multiple accused were charged—Lack of findings under S. 34, P.P.C., especially where conviction or acquittal hinges on collective criminal liability, rendered the judgment deficient—Case remanded for rewriting judgment in accordance with law, requiring the court to decide on each head of charge including individual and collective liability.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 342, 340(2), 367 & Remand JurisdictionAppeal---Remand for proper adjudication---Incomplete judgment---Scope---Conviction challenged due to deficient judgment—Trial court omitted findings under key charges and failed to provide reasons for conviction and acquittal—High Court remanded case to trial court with direction to rewrite judgment after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties—Remand ordered to ensure compliance with fair trial principles under procedural law and constitutional safeguards—Directions issued for expeditious completion of process within three weeks.(d) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 10-ARight to fair trial---Incomplete and ambiguous trial court judgment---Violation---Failure to address all charges, assign proper reasoning, and determine individual vs. joint liability of accused was found to violate the accused’s constitutional right to fair trial and due process as guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution—Remand necessary to uphold rule of law and ensure lawful and reasoned adjudication of criminal liability.-----Disposition: Judgment of Trial Court Set Aside---Case Remanded for Rewriting of Judgment---Connected Criminal Appeal and Revision Declared Infructuous and Dismissed.

Summary: Background: The accused-petitioner is on trial for offenses under Sections 18 ZA and 302 of the Azad Penal Code (APC), related to a case registered under FIR No.500/2020 at Police Station, City Muzaffarabad. During the trial, when the prosecution was presenting its evidence, the accused filed an application requesting that photographs of the deceased be sent for forensic examination. The trial court rejected this application, leading the accused to file a criminal revision petition against the trial court's decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to send the photographs of the deceased for forensic examination. 2- Whether the trial court's decision violated the accused's right to a fair trial by not providing an opportunity to prove his innocence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the criminal revision petition, holding that: The photographs were already part of the prosecution's evidence and had been exhibited by witnesses during the trial. The accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses regarding these photographs but did not raise any claims at that time. The trial court's rejection of the application was justified as the accused did not utilize the opportunity to challenge the evidence earlier in the trial. The accused retains the right to present his evidence and witnesses, including photographs, in his defense under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., and can explain his version under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is given multiple opportunities to rebut the prosecution's case. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2003 K 148 - Photographs as documents in evidence. 2002 P.Cr.LJ 1765 - Admissibility of photographs. 1990 CLC 331 - Production of photographs as means of proof. 1992 PSC (SC) 457 - Duty of court to inform the accused of the right to make a statement under Section 340 Cr.P.C. PLJ 2004 CRC Lah. 83 (DB) - Rights of the accused under Sections 340(2) and 342 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the accused had ample opportunity to present his defense and challenge the prosecution's evidence, thus upholding the trial court's decision.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Muhammad Yaqoob, the petitioner, was convicted in a case registered under FIR No. 10/2013 for possession of explosives.During a raid, four hand grenades and four detonators were recovered from the petitioner's premises, leading to his arrest and subsequent trial.The trial court convicted the petitioner under the Explosive Substance Act 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.The petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present jail petition before the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the recovered articles constitute explosive substances under the law.Whether the petitioner's conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act is justified.Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.---Holding/Reasoning:The raid conducted by the police led to the recovery of hand grenades and detonators from the petitioner's premises, establishing the connection between the petitioner and possession of explosives.The definition of "explosive substance" under the Explosive Substance Act includes materials used for making explosives or causing explosions, encompassing the recovered items.The petitioner's failure to present evidence in his defense or to refute the prosecution's evidence weakens his case, especially since he did not testify under section 340 Cr.P.C.The evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed credible and sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt.As a result, the jail petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 500 & 501---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200 & 201---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defamation---Private complaint---Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to fine on the basis of moving false complaints and publishing pamphlets with defamatory words against the respondents---Complainant produced two witnesses including his brother in support of his claim---Record showed that Trial Court, after recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing final arguments, without assigning any reason, instead announcing order on merit, restarted the trial and issued process for evidence to the Additional Collector as court witness---Trial Court, after recording statement of court witness, recorded statement of accused under Ss.342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. second time---Accused, after second statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. had examined himself on oath and had produced documents showing character of the complainant---Record showed that Trial Court failed to appreciate that even complainant's own brother had not supported him---Trial Court misinterpreted the evidence with reference to the burden of proof in criminal cases---Record did not show that the complainant had by way of rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of counter affidavit of officials containing the allegation of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant and, therefore, it ought to have been accepted as admitted document about a truth---Trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was not aggrieved by derogatory remarks on oath against him---If such remarks did not cause any defamation to the complainant then how a letter written to any government functionary, which had not been conveyed to the complainant, would have caused any injury to the complainant---Trial Court clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- as punishment and further ordered that fine be paid to the complainant---Trial Court had no authority to handover the amount of fine to the complainant---Amount of fine imposed as punishment had to be deposited by court through its ministerial office in the government treasury---Circumstances established that complainant failed to prove his claim---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.(b) Criminal trial-------Burden of proof---Scope---Burden is never shifted on accused unless the prosecution evidence is found to have proved the commission of offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 320---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 340(2) & 342---Qatl-i-Khata by rash or negligent driving---Appreciation of evidence---Di'yat, non-awarding of---Accused was allegedly driving vehicle rashly and negligently and as a result, accident took place and six people lost their lives while fourteen were injured---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for five years imprisonment but did not order payment of Di'yat amount---Validity---Accused in order to disprove allegation of rash and negligent driving should have made a statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused, in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., was unable to make any explanation as to why evidence had come on record against him---Trial Court rightly convicted the accused but should have added punishment of payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of each deceased---Trial Court in view of the use of word 'shall' in S.320,P.P.C. had no option to avoid ordering payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of deceased while convicting accused---High Court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence and included payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of the deceased person by the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.