Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 410---Appeal against conviction---Juvenile offender tried by Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, instead of Juvenile Court---Effect---Appellant was convicted under Ss. 376(iii) & 377-B, P.P.C. by the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Court, Islamabad, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine---Appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and should have been tried under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---Held, that the trial of a juvenile offender must be conducted by a court designated under the Juvenile Act, not by a GBV Court unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the law---The Juvenile Justice System prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, aligning with constitutional and international principles for juvenile protection, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)---The trial conducted by the Special Court was declared coram non judice (without jurisdiction) and thus void---Appeal partially allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; matter remanded to the Juvenile Court for fresh proceedings, including potential disposal through diversion under S.9 of the Juvenile Act. (b) Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018)---- ----Ss. 4, 9 & 23---Juvenile Justice System---Principle of rehabilitation and diversion---Juvenile Court’s role as parens patriae---Trial court must prioritize the reformation, reintegration, and protection of the juvenile offender rather than imposing punitive measures---Diversion under S. 9 of the Juvenile Act allows cases of juveniles to be resolved outside formal judicial proceedings, avoiding the stigma of conviction and focusing on reintegration through restitution, community service, or rehabilitation programs---Statement of the victim’s father (PW-1) recorded in trial, wherein he forgave the accused in the name of Allah, should have been considered for potential diversion under the Juvenile Act---Matter remanded for reconsideration by the Juvenile Justice Committee. (c) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021---- ----S. 3(3) & Sch. II---Jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act vis-à-vis Juvenile Justice System---Where both the Juvenile Act and Anti-Rape Act apply, the legislative intent and overriding provisions must be analyzed---Held, that due to the "deeming clause" in S. 3(3) of the Anti-Rape Act, a Juvenile Court is deemed to be a Special Court under the Act, allowing it to try juvenile offenders for offenses listed in Schedule II, including S. 377-B, P.P.C.---However, the converse is not true; a GBV Court not designated as a Juvenile Court cannot try a juvenile offender---Conviction by an unauthorized forum vitiates the entire proceedings, requiring remand to the competent Juvenile Court. (d) International Law---- ----United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules)----Pakistan’s obligations as a signatory to CRC mandate that juvenile offenders be treated with dignity, ensuring rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punitive measures---Principles of restorative justice, diversion, and protection of juvenile identity must be upheld in all proceedings---Juvenile justice system aims to prevent recidivism by fostering a corrective and child-centric approach. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 SCMR 1218) Mehran v. Ubaid Ullah (PLD 2024 SC 843) Khawar Kayani v. The State (PLD 2022 SC 551) Malik Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Malik Moazam Mahmood (CPLA 2250-L/2016, 2024 SC) Dr. Abdul Nabi v. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Quetta (2023 SCMR 1267) ----Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 410, 544-A & 367: —Appeal against conviction—Capital punishment—Duty of trial court in murder trials—Requirement of detailed reasoning—Scope— Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death as Tazir, with Rs.500,000/- compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under S.544-A, Cr.P.C. The conviction was challenged under S.410, Cr.P.C. Held, that the trial court erred in merely reproducing prosecution evidence in its judgment without independently assessing the credibility of each witness or providing cogent legal reasoning for acceptance or rejection—In cases involving capital punishment, it is a mandatory legal requirement for trial courts to record findings on each piece of evidence with clarity, apply judicial mind, and confront the accused accordingly—Failure to do so constitutes a perfunctory exercise of jurisdiction and undermines the seriousness of capital sentencing. Cited Case: Muhammad Latif v. The State PLD 2008 SC 503. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302—Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 —Murder—Sentence of death—Convict arrested on the spot—Ocular account supported by medical and forensic evidence— Appellant was arrested red-handed at the scene of occurrence by PW-3 (ASI Traffic Incharge) immediately after he shot the deceased twice with a handgun in broad daylight—Two other independent eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) corroborated the ocular version and assigned specific role to the appellant—Medical evidence (Ex.PW-5/A) and forensic findings (FSL report and toxicology) were in complete harmony with the eyewitness account—Held, that prosecution evidence was confidence inspiring, consistent, and remained unshaken during cross-examination—Convict’s presence at the place of occurrence was admitted and never disputed—Appeal dismissed and sentence of death confirmed. ----Cited Cases: • Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 • Saeed and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 747 • Muhammad Akbar v. The State PLD 2004 SC 44 • Khan alias Khani v. The State 2006 SCMR 1744 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872), Art. 129—Evaluation of evidence—Failure to discredit ocular testimony— Three prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) consistently deposed against the appellant, narrating the entire occurrence with clarity and without contradiction—Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were not only direct but also mutually corroborative—PW-3, a public official, apprehended the accused at the scene with the crime weapon—Defence failed to raise any plausible contradiction or shake credibility of witnesses—Cross-examination was superficial and avoided material points—Held, courts are not bound to discard otherwise reliable ocular evidence merely due to non-production of additional independent witnesses, especially when incident occurs in a public setting with prompt FIR and apprehension of accused. ---Cited Case: Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 (d) Criminal Law—Motive—Absence or weakness of motive—Effect— Defence contended that motive regarding illicit relations was not proven—Held, that proof of motive is not a sine qua non for awarding death sentence—Where direct, reliable, and confidence-inspiring ocular evidence exists, absence or weakness of motive does not cast doubt on the prosecution case—In cases of broad daylight occurrence witnessed by multiple independent persons and accused caught on the spot, motive is immaterial. ---Cited Case: • Saeed and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 747 • Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 (e) Criminal Trial—Standard of proof—Eyewitnesses and corroboratory evidence— Ocular testimony of three witnesses fully corroborated by site plan, seizure memos, autopsy report, and FSL findings—Held, prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond every possibility—Where material evidence is consistent, reliable, and corroborated by documentary proof, conviction is sustainable—Minor omissions or technical lapses such as absence of a witness’s location on site plan are not fatal if oral testimony is credible. Appeal dismissed; Sentence of death confirmed.

Summary: Acquittal ----Issues:The integrity of the investigation and the honesty of the eyewitnesses, particularly the complainant, given the improvements and inconsistencies in their accounts.The reliability of eyewitness testimony in securing a conviction in a case involving a capital charge, especially when such testimony is found to be deliberately dishonest and lacking independent corroboration.The legal standards for evaluating the presence and credibility of an eyewitness at the scene of a crime, including the need for physical evidence or corroborative details to support their account.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the eyewitness testimony, particularly that of the complainant, could not be considered reliable due to deliberate and dishonest improvements in their accounts. The absence of corroborative evidence or physical circumstances that could independently verify the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime further undermined the credibility of their testimony. Consequently, the court determined that the testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon to maintain a conviction and sentence on a capital charge. The case emphasizes the importance of honesty and reliability in eyewitness testimony and the necessity for independent corroboration, especially in serious charges.-----Quote: ''1. Dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses. Complainant, claiming to be eye-witness of the occurrence, stated that he was present in front of his house at the time of occurrence but he did not provide such detail about the remaining two eye-witnesses and simply mentioned their names at the time of lodging the report. The reason for presence of the eye-witnesses was kept open for any explanation at the choice of complainant or I.O at subsequent stage which indicates the dishonest design on the part of investigating agency.2. Improvements made by eye-witness once found deliberate and dishonest cast doubt on the veracity of such witness. Testimony of such witness could not be safely relied upon to maintain conviction and sentence of an accused on a capital charge.3. It is settled principle of law that an eyewitness, who claimed his presence at the spot, must satisfy the mind of the Court through some physical circumstances or through some corroborative evidence in support of his presence at the spot but same are missing in the present case because neither names of the eye-witnesses, who were examined during trial, were mentioned in the inquest report and postmortem report as identifiers of the dead body nor their clothes allegedly besmeared with blood of the deceased were taken into possession by Investigating Officer, thus, their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is doubtful.4. Conduct of a witness who willfully conceals well-known facts he was supposed to know or disclose at the time of recording his statement before the Court, would label him as a dishonest witness and his testimony could not be relied upon without independent corroboration especially when he is closely related to deceased.''

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898--- S. 410--- the emigration Ordinance, 1979--- S.24-A offence under section 17/12/22 of the Ordinance--- Appeal against conviction--- Appellant on false pretext of providing emigration and job at Doha, Qatar visited district Haripure, conducted interviews of the affecties and received cash amount. Complainant was offered job of GM Qatar Petroleum and received 65 lacs from him in cash and through bank transfer. Prosecution produced overwhelming evidence of persons who are direct effecties of the false pretext of providing emigration & job at Doha, Qatar. Offences under section 17, 18, and 22 of emigration ordinance were proved through convincing oral as well as documentary evidence. Conviction & sentence recorded by the learned trial court/ Special Judge Court, Emigration, KP, Peshawar/ Camp Court, Abbottabad, being based on proper appreciation of evidence was maintained. Appeal was dismissed in the circumstance.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr.PC.1. The judicial view that ? ? non-production of the case property at thetrial puts at naught the prosecution case ? ? is further explained.2. A meaningful consideration of the attending circumstances of a casewould help a Judicial Magistrate ensure that a judicial confessionwould be voluntary and truthful. One such illustration of an attendingcircumstance, like the case in hand, is the previous absconsion of anaccused person who remained under a constant threat of arrest at thehands of police.3. Where more than one accused are produced for recording judicialconfession, a Judicial Magistrate is under a heavy duty to ensure thathe/she is able to afford them an opportunity of thinking over theirvoluntariness distinctly and independently.

Summary: Section(s) of Law; Section 410 Cr.P.C1. Proof of chain of safe custody of the narcotics substance in the Police Station and safe transmission to the FSL would be a key factor for recording conviction.2. In the specific context of narcotics cases, police officials are as good witnesses as any other witness unless their evidence is convincingly shattered.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr. PC.1. In narcotic cases, where the prosecution has been able to produce consistent and trustworthy evidence, then the same has to be appreciated in favour of the prosecution.2. Where the defence by itself has confirmed the pre and post events of an occurrence in a cross-examination, then the defence has to suffer for the same.3. Where the prosecution has been able to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the incriminating articles from the spot to the Police Station and in the Police Station and then from the Police Station to the FSL, then such recovery and the consequent FSL report is sufficient to bring conviction and to maintain it.4. Minor omissions or contradictions could be ignored when the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person, especially when the accused has not alleged any ill-will or mala fide against the police officials.5. In narcotic cases, associating of an independent++ witness to the recovery memo has been specifically excluded by the law, therefore, non-compliance of section 103 Cr. P.C. would be of nobenefit for the accused.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr. PC.1. For bringing home the charge, the foremost duty of the prosecution is toestablish the presence of the eyewitnesses and without establishing theirpresence, their evidence would be of no help to the prosecution.2. Where the complainant or prosecution witnesses improved theirstatements in the Court from their initial stance, then the evidence ofsuch witnesses could not be considered as they loose the characteristicsof a truthful witness.3. For giving a benefit to the accused which is not essential that thereshould be many grounds, a single doubt if appealable to the prudentmind is sufficient for acquittal of an accused person.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr. PC.1. Required standard of proof of void and illegal marriage and the context of section 494 PPC fully discussed.2. Where the prosecution has proved its case, then the Court should not hesitate in awarding the punishment.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr. PC.1. While determining the guilt of an accused, evidence of the prosecution isto be weighed in a manner to determine as to whether the accused hascommitted the offence for which he is charged and as to whether theevidence essential for the proof of such an offence has been brought bythe prosecution or not.2. While bringing home the charge against an accused, the prosecution isbound to establish the mens rea on part of the accused or else mere actusreus would not be sufficient to bring home the charge against an accusedperson.3. While framing charge, the Court of law should attend to the contents ofthe material brought by the prosecution and should not restrict itself onlyto the section of law, which has been leveled by the InvestigatingOfficer.4. If other offences not mentioned in the FIR are prima facie beingcommitted, the charge in the prosecution case should be expanded to thesame or else the prosecution would suffer.