Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 498, 174 & 176---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Interim-pre-arrest bail, recalling of--- During police custody, complainant's son was allegedly tortured by the applicant (police official) along with co-accused/police officials, resulting in his police custodial death---Deceased's dead body was recovered from the hospital with multiple injuries---Instead of following the procedure in Ss. 174 and 176, Cr.P.C., applicant along with co-accused left the deceased's dead body at the hospital and fled away---Prosecution witnesses supported the complainant's version---No ill will or mala fide had been pointed out by the applicant for false implication---Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction---It is a diversion from the usual course of law i.e., arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trumped up charges through abuse of process of law---Thus, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide---It is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation---Sufficient material was available on record to connect the applicant with the commission of the offence---Interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was recalled, in circumstances. Sajid v. Samin ur Rehman (Deceased) through his father and others 2021 SCMR 138 and Sanaullah Khuharo and others v. The State 2020 P Cr.LJ Note 59 distinguish. Ghulam Raza Soomro v. The State 2000 SCMR 1645 and Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1129 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and only tentative assessment is to be made. Mehmood Akhtar v. Nazir Ahmed 1995 SCMR 310 rel. Muhammad Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Complainant in person. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 7th January, 2025. Order Amjad Ali Sahito, J.--- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicant, seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.91/2024, registered at Police Station Waggan (PP Lalu Rounk), for offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. Before on this he filed such on application but the same was turned down by the Court of 1st. Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kamber vide Order dated 02.12.2024; hence he filed instant criminal bail application. 2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder. 3. Per learned counsel the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that this is an unseen incident and there is no role against the applicant/accused. He has also relied upon a letter dated 07.10.2024 wherein the claim of the learned Counsel for the applicant claims that the applicant was present before the Consumer Protection Court at Kamber, however, when it was inquired whether there is any case diary, he replied negative and lastly prayed for grant of bail. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Sajid v. Samin ur Rehman (Deceased) through his father and others (2021 SCMR 138) and Sanaullah Khuharo and others v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 59). 4. On the other hand complainant present in court as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh vehemently opposed the grant of bail and states that sufficient material is available on the record as he has participated in the commission of offence as such he is not entitled for the grant of bail. 5. Heard and perused. 6. The case of prosecution is that son of the complainant was booked in a theft case and he was arrested by SHO, Masroor Ali Shah, ASI Zafar Ali, and PC Habibullah/present applicant in crime No. 90/2024 by police of police station P.S. Wagan for an offence under section 381-A, 511, P.P.C. The complainant and other villagers went to the police post Lalu Rank and inquired whereabouts of his son but no one was ready to inform him about his son. After passing some time the complainant came to know that the dead body of his son Fateh Muhammad was lying at Taluka Hospital Warah. The complainant along with his witness went to Tulka Hospital, where they saw the dead body of deceased Fateh Muhammad and found injuries on the different parts of the dead body and also on the neck. 7. From the perusal of the record it appears that during his detention at the police station deceased Fateh Muhammad was miserably tortured by the SHO, Masroor Ali Shah, ASI Zafar Ali, and PC Habibullah and other Police officials at the police station. Resultantly he died at the police station; as such this is a case of police custodial death. Further procedure also provided in the law that, if any person has been killed by another person or in police custody the report shall be sumitted before the nearest Magistrate under Section 174, Cr.P.C Section 176, Cr.P.C also provides a mechanism for how to hold an inquiry by a Magistrate into the cause of death when any person dies while in the custody of the police. But in the instant case to destroy the evidence, the police party left the dead body of the deceased at the hospital and flew away. The prosecution witnesses supported the version of the complainant. No ill will or mala fide has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant for false implication into the case. Reliance is placed in the case of Ghulam Raza Soomro v. The State (2000 SCMR 1645). 8. The concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the Court feels satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person's assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter is found as no mala fide is made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant/accused has been implicated in this case falsely. Further, in additional to the above, I would like to mention that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is the diversion of the usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humilitate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of 'Rana Abdul Khlaiq v. The State and others' [2019 SCMR 1129]. 9. It is well-settled principle of law that the deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and only tentative assessment is to be made. The reliance in this context is made to the case of 'Mehmood Akhtar v. Nazir Ahmed' [1995 SCMR 310]. Sufficient material is available on record which connects the applicant/accused with the commission of the alleged offence. The case laws relied on by learned counsel for the applicant/accused are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. In view of the above, the applicant has failed to bring his case for further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court to the applicant/accused vide order dated 05.12.2024 is hereby recalled and the bail application is dismissed. 11. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh requests for custody of the applicant/accused as such he is taken into custody and handed over to the SHO, P.P Lalu Raunk Police station Wagan for further investigation. 12. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial. SA/H-3/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner's non-disclosure of his past involvement and acquittal did not constitute concealment, nor render him unfit for recruitment. His acquittal remained unchallenged, affirming his innocence. Surveillance records under the Police Rules, 1934, are temporary aims at surveillance and research, not to infringe fundamental rights and mere FIR registration does not define bad character as the law presumes good character unless proven otherwise. A government cannot disregard judicial verdicts through administrative actions that violate constitutionally guaranteed rights. Every citizen has the right to employment unless validly denied, as livelihood is a fundamental right under Articles 9, 18, 27, and 38(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Summary: (a) Antiquities Act (VII of 1975)—Preservation of heritage—Scope: Karoonjhar Hills, classified as a site of "international heritage," was declared protected under the Antiquities Act, 1975, and other related laws. The court held that any excavation, mining, or commercial activity within the area is prohibited to preserve the historical, cultural, and environmental integrity of the site. Restoration of the site to its original form was deemed necessary. (b) Constitutional jurisdiction—Public interest litigation: The petitions filed by residents of Tharparkar sought the preservation of Karoonjhar Hills as a public interest matter. The court emphasized that natural heritage sites of historical and ecological significance require protection and cannot be subjected to private exploitation for commercial gains. (c) Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994—Protected heritage sites: Karoonjhar Hills were declared protected under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994, following recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Sindh Cultural Heritage. The court underscored the importance of safeguarding the site as a national and international treasure. (d) Wildlife Protection and Ecological Balance—Sindh Wildlife Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management Act, 2020: The Karoonjhar Hills were recognized as part of the Runn Kutch Wildlife Sanctuary. The court directed the Forest and Wildlife Department to resurrect the sanctuary, restore forests, and ensure the protection of animal habitats in compliance with the 2020 Act. The destruction of natural habitats was termed "ecocide," calling for strict enforcement of environmental laws. (e) Mining activities—Prohibition under Sindh Mining Concession (Granite) Order, 2007, and Sindh Mines and Minerals Governance Act, 2021: The court held that the Karoonjhar Hills, being a protected heritage and wildlife sanctuary, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Mines and Minerals Department. Mining and excavation activities in the area were declared illegal, and government officials were directed to prevent any such activities. (f) Jain Temples and Cultural Restoration: The court directed the Government of Sindh to restore Jain temples and monuments within the Karoonjhar Hills to their original state, emphasizing their historical and religious significance. Movable antiquities associated with these temples were also to be retrieved and preserved. (g) International Conventions and Climate Change Commitments: The court highlighted Pakistan's obligations under international conventions and the National Climate Change Policy, 2021, to prevent environmental degradation of heritage sites. It stressed the importance of balancing cultural preservation with economic and ecological considerations. (h) Judicial Directions: The court issued the following directives to ensure the preservation of Karoonjhar Hills: Prohibition of excavation: No mining or excavation activity allowed except for discovering historical monuments. Wildlife sanctuary restoration: Immediate steps for forest restoration and wildlife habitat conservation. Administrative accountability: Government officials, including the Deputy Commissioner and law enforcement, to ensure compliance. Cultural restoration: Rehabilitation of temples and historical structures with expert assistance. Monitoring and enforcement: Quarterly progress reports on forest restoration and strict accountability for violations. ----Disposition: The petitions were allowed. Mining permits and licenses were invalidated, and restoration and preservation of Karoonjhar Hills were mandated. Detailed compliance mechanisms were outlined for government officials and departments.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Limitation Act (IX of 1908--- ----S.3 & First Sched., Art. 181---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.23 & 24---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Execution application, filing of---Commencement of period of limitation---Determination---Executing Court dismissed the application under S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, (Act) treating the execution application within time, whereas,the Appellate Court overturned the decision of the Executing Court---Validity---Civil revision was finally decided by the High Court on 22.02.2020; six months thereafter the Execution Application was filed and since the revisional proceeding was also covered by the principle of merger, hence, the Execution Application was within time and was not adversely affected by Art. 181 of the Act---Appellate Court did not appreciate the case law in overturning the decision of the Executing Court, thus, the impugned order was illegal and could not be sustained---Once the judgment and decree is given in favour of an individual, which has attained finality, in particular concerning his proprietary right, it cannot be eclipsed, except, when there is an express provision of substantial law, but that too requires liberal interpretation, so that the legitimate ownership right is safeguarded, because proprietary rights are governed and protected under Arts.23 & 24 of the Constitution and not merely by an ordinary statute---Order of the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Executing Court was restored---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstance. Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others 1992 SCMR 241 and Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2013 SCMR 5 rel. Director General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi through Authorized Officer v. Muhammad Afsar and others 2021 CLC 909; Ferozuddin and 11 others v. Mazhar Hussain Shah and 5 others PLD 2009 Kar. 397; Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153 and Mst. Noor Jehan and others v. Miss Shahnaz and 3 others PLD 2020 Sindh 652 ref. Malik Waseem Iqbal for Applicant. Syed Ehsan Raza for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2024. Judgment Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J .--- Through the present Civil Revision Application, the Appellant has challenged the Order dated 09.09.2022 [the "Impugned Order"] passed in Civil Appeal No.184 of 2021, whereby, the Order dated 17.09.2021 of the learned Executing Court [in Execution Application No.13 of 2020] dismissing the Application of present Respondent No.1, filed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act [1908], has been overturned, as a result of which the above Execution Application of the Appellant has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Malik Waseem Iqbal, Advocate, representing the Applicant(s), has argued that the limitation of three years, in terms of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, would be counted when the last order was passed, which is of 22.02.2020, by this Court in Revision Application No.39 of 2014 preferred by the present Respondent No.1, dismissing the same and maintaining the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court, in favour of the Applicant. The Execution Application is filed on 19th August 2020, that is, six months after the above Order [passed in Revision proceeding], and is within time. In support of his arguments, he has cited the case law reported in_ i. 1992 SCMR 241 [Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others] Abdul Qayyum case ii. 2013 SCMR 5 [Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others] - Bakhtiar case iii. 2021 CLC 909 [Director General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi through Authorized Officer v. Muhammad Afsar and others]; and iv. P L D 2009 Karachi 397 [Ferozuddin and 11 others v. Mazhar Hussain Shah and 5 others]. 3. On the other hand, Syed Ehsan Raza, Advocate, representing Respondent No.1, has controverted the above arguments and has supported the Impugned Order. Contended that Execution proceeding initiated by the Applicant itself is time barred as it is filed after a period of three years in violation of Article 181 [ibid]; because the limitation period is to be counted from date when the first time the Applicant got the Decision in his favour, that is, through the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March 2014, given by the Appellate Court; which was maintained by this Court in the above Revision Proceeding and in the intervening period since no stay was operating, thus, the above Execution Proceeding should have been filed much earlier [three years after the Appellate Court Decision of 03.03.2014], but, initiated after six years, is barred by time; that Respondent No.1 [judgment debtor] should not be at mercy of decree holder/ the Applicant, as far as the implementation of judgment and decree is concerned. He has cited the following case law_ i. P L D 1985 Supreme Court 153 [Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others]; and ii. P L D 2020 Sindh 652 [Mst. Noor Jehan and others v. Miss Shahnaz and 3 others] - Mst. Noor Jehan. 4. Undisputed facts are that present Applicant has filed Suit No.409 of 2005 against the Respondents, inter alia, for declaring Sale Agreement dated 09.01.1999 between the Respondents as forged and fictitious document and direction to Respondent No.1 [Muhammad Ayoub] for handing over the subject property to the Applicant, which the latter has purchased through a Sale Deed executed by Respondent No.3 [Mrs. Parveen]; subsequently, Respondent No.1 also instituted a Suit No.896 of 2007 and both Suits were decided by a consolidated Judgment dated 30.03.2013, dismissing the Suit of present Applicant and decreeing that of present Respondent No.1, which Judgment was challenged by the Applicant by filing two Civil Appeals Nos.137 and 140 of 2013, which were decided by the Appellate Court in favour of the Applicant, by decreeing the Applicant's Suit and dismissing the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 vide Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.2014, which was challenged by the Respondent No.1 in Civil Revision Application No.39 of 2014, before this Court, but unsuccessfully and the Judgment dated 22.02.2020 of this Court has upheld the Appellate Decision. These Judgments are available at pages-107, 203 and 309 of the Lis record. 5. The Applicant filed Execution Application No.13 of 2020, presented on 19.08.2020, for implementation of the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March 2014 [of the Appellate Court], which was maintained in Revision [supra], was opposed by the Respondent No.1, inter alia, by filing the Application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act [1908], that the Execution proceeding itself is time barred as it is filed after a period of three years from the Judgment and decree in violation of Article 181 of the Limitation Act. After hearing the parties, the learned Executing Court vide Order dated 17.09.2021 [at page-25-C] dismissed the above Application of Respondent No.1, which is overturned through the Impugned Order. 6. Pr?cis of the case law cited by the Applicant's Counsel is that rule of merger equally applies to the decree passed in revisional jurisdiction [besides the Appellate Court]. The issue at hand has been comprehensively decided in the Abdul Qayyum case [supra] in which an execution petition was filed on 5th January 1987, after the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 18.11.1986 was pronounced; the Decree of the Trial Court was of 27th April 1981, which was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully [vide order dated 18.10.1981], followed by the above revision order of the High Court. The executing court declined the request of respondent [of the reported judgment] and allowed the Execution which was appealed against without any success, but, eventually in the revisional jurisdiction the learned High Court reversed the decisions emanating from the Execution Proceeding. While interpreting Article 181 [of the Limitation Act], it is held, that the time period will start when the right to accrue arise to file the execution, which "legitimately arises when Revision against a decision of the lower Court is, one way or other, disposed of."; whereas, in Bakhtiar's case [ibid] the Honourable Supreme Court has further clarified that time to file the Execution proceeding will start when finally a matter is decided through appeal or revision by the High Court and the time consumed in pursuing civil petition before the Supreme Court, unless the impugned decision is under suspension, is not excluded from computing the limitation; the CPLA [Civil Petition Leave to Appeal] was dismissed, because, the petitioner filed the execution petition on 3rd December 2007, after the leave refusal Order dated 31st March 2005, whereas, through the judgment dated 17th March 2003, the civil revision preferred by the same petitioner was partly accepted / decreed; the Apex Court is of the view that the right accrued to file the execution proceeding from the date of judgment of the High Court. 7. The crux of the case law relied upon by the Respondent's Counsel is about the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of C.P.C., which is different from appellate jurisdiction and is restricted; during pendency of civil revision in the High Court, the Executing Court decided the execution proceeding, as no stay was operating, is approved by this Court [the reported judgment of Mst. Noor Jehan, ibid, is cited by the Respondent's counsel, to augment his arguments, that even a Civil Revision was pending before this Court, where no stay was granted, the Applicant could have pursued his execution application, but he did not, hence, the same is barred by Limitation]; Section 3 of the Limitation Act is mandatory and it is the duty of the Court to notice the point of limitation, whether the plea of limitation was raised or not and that the waiver of the question of limitation is not permissible, even where the period of limitation is prescribed by a special or a local law. 8. To the facts of present Lis, the case law cited by the Applicant's counsel is applicable, because, undisputedly Civil Revision was finally decided by this Court on 22.02.2020, six months thereafter the Execution Application was filed [as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs], and since, the revisional proceeding is also covered by the principle of Merger as held above, hence, the Execution Application was within time and is not adversely affected by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Court did not appreciate the case law in overturning the Decision of the Executing Court and thus the Impugned Order is illegal and cannot be sustained. 9. The present Lis should also be looked at from another angle. Once the Judgment and Decree is given in favour of an individual, which has attained finality, in particular concerning his proprietary right, cannot be eclipsed, except, when there is an express provision of substantial law, that also requires liberal interpretation, so that the legitimate ownership right is safeguarded, because proprietary rights are governed and protected under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and not merely by an ordinary statute. 10. Consequently, the Impugned Order of the Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Executing Court, is restored. SA/M-15/Sindh Revision allowed.

Summary: Section 324 PPC comprises two components: the act committed with the intention or knowledge to commit Qatl-i-Amd and the effect of such an act. The offender's failure to achieve the intended result due to external circumstances remains immaterial in constituting the offence. Sufficient incriminating evidence fulfilling these conditions is adequate for conviction under this section, and if hurt is caused, the offender may be separately convicted for such injury. Section 71 PPC, a controlling provision, limits punishment when an offence consists of multiple parts to prevent double jeopardy unless expressly provided by law. However, in cases of multiple injuries, Section 337-W PPC mandates separate punishment for each hurt inflicted.

Summary: In habeas corpus petition the Court may recover custody of the minor children from one parent and hand the same over to other parent but said jurisdiction is summary in character and neither controversies are tried nor entire evidence is recorded under ordinary substantive and procedural laws under civil and criminal jurisdiction and such a jurisdiction being extraordinary in its very nature should be sparingly used because the plenary jurisdiction in the matter rests under other laws in other forums of special jurisdiction who should normally be allowed to exercise it in accordance with law.

Summary: In habeas corpus petition the Court may recover custody of the minor children from one parent and hand the same over to other parent but said jurisdiction is summary in character and neither controversies are tried nor entire evidence is recorded under ordinary substantive and procedural laws under civil and criminal jurisdiction and such a jurisdiction being extraordinary in its very nature should be sparingly used because the plenary jurisdiction in the matter rests under other laws in other forums of special jurisdiction who should normally be allowed to exercise it in accordance with law. 774Crl. Misc. 56457/24 Zain Tariq Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh 31- 12- 2024 2024 LHC 6099 2025 PCr.LJ 1354 (Lahore)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unseen occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Complaint through which crime was reported did not bear any time of reporting and it was also not taken care of by the police because Police Official did not mention the time of receiving such complaint---Place of receiving complaint was also disputed in this case---Police Official claimed receiving of complaint at Government Hospital, whereas accompanying constable deposed receiving of such complaint at a roundabout---Such facts created a shadow of doubt on prosecution case from the very inception which in turn doubted the presence of witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence, particularly when the dead body was received in the mortuary after three hours at 8:45 a.m. but the police papers were given to the doctor with a further delay of more than four hours at 1:00 p.m.---Yet neither the name of complainant nor of eye-witness was mentioned in inquest report or the postmortem report---Therefore, transportation of deceased to the hospital by the witnesses through Rescue Service 1122 became an answered situation---Investigating Officer also conceded that he did not record the statement of any member of Rescue Service 1122 about that fact---Investigating Officer further conceded that no CDRs of the witnesses were obtained by him in order to verify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Thus, apparently it was an unseen occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State 2019 SCMR 956 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Ocular account was furnished by complainant and his nephew---Eye-witness/nephew of complainant was resident of one city, whereas, the occurrence took place at an other city, about 100-kilometers away from his house---In his statement before the Court, said witness had failed to advance any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence in the wee hours of morning, as such he was a chance witness and his testimony could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Identity of the accused doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---While lodging the FIR, complainant had not mentioned the features of the unknown accused persons who had allegedly committed the occurrence though he claimed that the accused could be identified on seeing again---However, while submitting his application before the police in the form of his supplementary version, the complainant stated that he was informed by the police about the presence of the accused persons on 05.09.2018 before a Court and when the complainant party reached, accused persons escaped from there---In the said statement, the complainant not only improved his version by stating himself to be the injured of occurrence but also admitted the identification of the accused persons on the information of the police---In the supplementary version which was submitted by the complainant after about three months of the occurrence, the complainant had not only made dishonest improvement regarding his injury but the said statement was also self-contradictory because the complainant himself stated that on seeing the complainant party the accused/appellants fled away from the spot however, on second call of the Court they appeared before the Court and the complainant party identified them---It was not appealable to a prudent mind that had the accused fled away from the spot on seeing the complainant party then why would they have re-appeared in order to make them fully identifiable by the complainant party and to create evidence against them---In support of acclaimed version, neither the prosecution opted to produce copy of bail application of the accused/appellants nor the order sheet of the Court to show attendance of accused/appellants and the complainant on 05.09.2018---Under the circumstances, it was apparent that complainant had neither seen the accused/appellants in the Court nor at the place of occurrence, therefore, his testimony was under serious clouds of doubt which could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i)& 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Un-natural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Alleged eye-witnesses manifested unnatural conduct at the place of occurrence---According to the prosecution case, the complainant party was comprising of four persons including the deceased, whereas, the appellants allegedly three in numbers were not armed with any sort of weapon and the eye-witnesses, being close relatives of deceased, did not dare to capture any of the accused persons nor made serious efforts to save the deceased during the occurrence---Eye-witnesses stood like silent spectators and gave free hand to the accused persons to inflict fist blows to their kith and kin and thereafter, fleed away from the spot---Thus, conduct of the eye-witnesses, who were closely related to deceased, was highly unnatural, therefore, their presence at the spot was doubtful and their evidence was not worthy of reliance---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95; Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 and Zafar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 326 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---CCTV footage---Contents of CD not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Prosecution produced evidence before the Court in respect of identification of the accused/appellants in the form of footage contained in a CD and photographs retrieved from CCTVs installed by Punjab Safe City Authority---Complainant talked about handing over of CD and photographs by the Expert/Incharge of Safe City Project to Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer deposed about handing over of CD only---No certificate of an expert was available nor he or any other witness appeared in the dock to depose about making of video or preparation of photographs from CCTV footage---Investigating Officer conceded that he did not submit application to SP investigation seeking permission to see CCTV footage at the office of Safe City Project---Investigating Officer also did not tender in evidence the copy of application made by him before said Incharge nor he recorded his statement---Claimed by Investigating Officer that though he examined the private CCTV as well which were installed at the place of occurrence, yet did not record the statement of any person in that respect nor took into possession the DVR etc.---Thus, it remained a missing fact that who prepared the CD and photographs---Photographs could be used as evidence yet it was essential to prove its source--- No certificate of expert was tendered in evidence nor an expert appeared in the witness box to verify the sanctity/genuineness of the video---It was incumbent to get a photogrammetry test of accused/appellants from Forensic Science Agency in order to provide evidence that they were the person visible in video retrieved from CCTV footage---Moreover, neither the Court had examined such CD while playing it in the Court nor it was shown to any witness during his statement who could have identified the assailants in the video---Thus, Trial Court had not met the requirement of Arts. 71 & 139 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, because CCTV footage could be used either as the documentary evidence or the real evidence---When it was being used as documentary evidence it must be shown to the witness while recording his statement and when it was used as real evidence then Court must inspect it with some observations and mere marking it as "P" did not fulfill the requirement---Thus, prosecution had failed to prove the contents of CD in accordance with the principles of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Basit v. State and others 2024 LHC 4466; Numan alias Nomi and others v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ 1394 and Fakhar Iqbal v. State and others 2024 LHC 4364 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence by itself does not throw any light on the identity of the offender---Such evidence may confirm the available substantive evidence with regard to certain facts including seat of the injury, nature of the injury, cause of the death, kind of the weapon used in the occurrence, duration between the injuries and the death and presence of an injured witness or the injured accused at the place of occurrence, but it does not connect the accused with the commission of the offence---Medical evidence cannot constitute corroboration for proving involvement of the accused person in the commission of offence, as it does not establish the identity of the accused person. Muhammad Idrees and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 612; Yaqoob Shah v. State PLD 1976 SC 53; Machia v. State PLD 1976 SC 695; Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain 1994 SCMR 1928; Mehmood Ahmad v. State 1995 SCMR 127; Muhammad Sharif v. State 1997 SCMR 866; Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal PLD 2004 SC 663; Iftikhar Hussain v. State 2004 SCMR 1185; Sikandar v. State" 2006 SCMR 1786; Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Akram 2007 SCMR 1549; Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1103 and Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986 rel. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---A single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit. Maqsood Alam and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 156; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146; Muhammad Imtiaz Baig and another v. The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another 2024 SCMR 1191; Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1427; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1507 rel. Rai Usman Ahmed and Ms. Ruqia Ramzan for Appellants. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Nadeem Nawaz Khan Wardag for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 19th December, 2024. Judgment Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J .--- Muhammad Ammar Shafi, Mateen Bilal and Muhammad Burhan, accused/appellants faced trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case FIR No.311, dated 14.06.2018 under sections 302/34 P.P.C (offence under Sections 337-F(i)/420/468 and 471 P.P.C were added during investigation) registered at Police Station Millat Park, Lahore and on conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 24.04.2024 accused/appellants were convicted under section 316 P.P.C read with Section 34 P.P.C and sentenced to diyat of Rs.19,35,594/-, to be paid by all the accused/appellants jointly and in lump-sum to the legal heirs of Rashid Ali, deceased and simple imprisonment for five years each. However, neither charge under Sections 337-F(i)/420/468/471 P.P.C was framed against the appellants nor any conviction was handed down by the learned trial Court for the said offences. Criminal Appeal No.26878 of 2024 has been filed by accused/appellants against their above conviction and sentence, whereas, Criminal Revision No.32182 of 2024 has been brought by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence of accused/ appellants; both these matters are being decided by this single judgment. Pending trial, an application filed by Mateen Bilal, appellant No.2 for declaring him "juvenile offender" was allowed, however, his prayer for holding separate trial was declined which was pursuant to section 12(2) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. 2. As per complaint (Ex.PB) and FIR (Ex.PA) Wajid Hussain complainant (PW-3) was working at Ghousia Milk Shop, Nadeem Shaheed Road, Samanabad. On 14.06.2018 in wee hours of morning at about 05:45 a.m., his brother, namely Rashid Ali son of Shah Muhammad caste Gujjar resident of Bastami Road was coming from his residence towards Ghousia Milk Shop, when unknown accused persons sitting in an ambush at Shahab Chowk suddenly attacked his brother Rashid Ali and raised lalkara that today he would not be spared. Rashid Ali by running arrived in front of shop and called the complainant to rescue him from the accused persons. Complainant (PW-3) and his nephew, Zahid Maqbool (PW-4) came out from the shop. The said accused persons started beating Rashid Ali; they tried to save him but he became unconscious and fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile, Ahmad Khan son of Abdullah resident of Sabzi Mandi, Lahore (given up PW) also arrived at the spot. On seeing brother of the deceased as unconscious and fallen on the ground, accused persons fled away from the spot on motorcycle. It was claimed that accused persons could be identified if come across again. They shifted Rashid Ali to nearby Hospital Samanabad through Rescue Service 1122 where doctor verified his death. 3. Matter was reported to the police by the complainant through written application on arrival of Wafa Ali T/SI PW-9 at Govt. Hospital Samanabad, Lahore Thereafter, Ghulam Ali, Sub-Inspector (PW-12) investigating officer reached said Hospital on the same day, examined the dead body of Rashid Ali, deceased, prepared injury statement (Exh.PN) and inquest report (Exh.PO). He also drafted application for post mortem examination (Exh.PP) and sent the same to dead house for autopsy, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PR), recorded statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected CCTV video, got it secured in a CD (P-1) from the office of Safe City Project vide memo (Exh.PE), recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. On 09.10.2018 Ashiq Hussain SI (PW-13) arrested the accused/ appellants, produced them before Judicial Magistrate for physical remand. On 12.10.2018 accused/appellant Ammar Shafi led to the recovery of motorcycle Honda CD-70 bearing registration No. LEY-8922 (P-4) along with two number plates bearing registration No. LEK/1624/17 (P-3/1-2). After completion of investigation, he submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the accused were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty, whereupon, prosecution produced, as many as, fourteen PWs including eye-witnesses, namely, Wajid Hussain complainant (PW-3) and Zahid Maqbool (PW-4) and one witness was recorded as CW-1. After close of prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and while responding to a question that why this case is against them and why PWs deposed against them? have stated as under: "The instant case was registered against unknown persons but the police urged and investigate the complainant (sic), just to show their efficiency, to involve me and my co-accused in this case by nominating us through his supplementary statement which he did just on direction of police. We have no concern with the instant occurrence. Police officials and the complainant nominated us while presuming us as the accused persons just to complete untraced cases. Said facts coupled with the snaps and CD presented by prosecution also prove that the occurrence was not committed by us. The witnesses of the case were managed by the concerned police officer to complete the file of untraced case." The accused/appellants did not appear as their own witness in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, produced documents (Mark-A to Mark-D) in their evidence and the trial ended in the terms as detailed above. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. The complaint through which crime was reported does not bear any time of reporting and it was also not taken care of by the police because Wafa Ali T/SI did not mention the time of receiving such complaint. Place of receiving complaint was also disputed in this case. Wafa Ali T/SI PW-9 claimed receiving of complaint at Government Hospital Samanabad, whereas accompanying constable Muhammad Amin PW-14 deposed receiving of such complaint at first roundabout of Samanabad. Such facts created a shadow of doubt on prosecution case from the very inception which in turn doubts presence of witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence, particularly when the dead body was received in the mortuary after three hours at 8:45 a.m. but the police papers were given to the doctor with a further delay of more than four hours at 1:00 p.m. Yet neither the name of complainant PW-3 nor of Zahid Maqbool, PW-4 is mentioned in inquest report or the postmortem report. Therefore, transportation of deceased to the hospital by the PWs through Rescue Service 1122 became an answered situation. PW-12 investigating officer also conceded that he did not record the statement of any member of Rescue Service 1122 about this fact. He further conceded that no CDRs of the witnesses were obtained by him in order to verify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Thus, apparently it was an unseen occurrence. 6. In a criminal case, first and foremost question of utmost importance is the identity of the assailants/accused involved in the commission of the occurrence. While dealing with the case of unknown accused, care and caution must be taken in ensuring that an unknown accused is correctly identified and there must be very bleak chances of any misidentification of the culprit, who is being identified in the process either through test identification parade as held in a case reported as 'Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State' (2019 SCMR 956), or through any other means, but surprisingly in this case even no identification parade was opted to be conducted rather the identification was rested on supplementary statement and pictures/CD obtained from the office of Safe City Project. 7. Ocular account was furnished by Wajid Hussain complainant (PW-3) and Zahid Maqbool (PW-4). It is in the evidence that Zahid Maqbool (PW-4) was resident of Gulabpura Gujranwala Cantt, whereas, the occurrence took place at Samanabad, Lahore about 100-kilometers away from his house. In his statement before the Court, he has failed to advance any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence in the wee hours of morning, as such he is a chance witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon. While lodging the FIR, Wajid Hussain complainant (PW-3) has not mentioned the features of the unknown accused persons who had allegedly committed the occurrence though he claimed that the accused could be identified on seeing again. However, while submitting his application before the police in the form of his supplementary version (Exh.PF), the complainant stated that he was informed by the police about the presence of the accused persons on 05.09.2018 before learned Addl. Sessions Judge and when the complainant party reached, accused persons escaped from there. In the aforementioned statement, the complainant not only improved his version by stating himself to be the injured of occurrence but also admitted the identification of the accused persons on the information of the police. Relevant part of his statement recorded in (Exh.PF) is hereby reproduced for ready reference:- In the aforementioned version which was submitted by the complainant after about three months of the occurrence, the complainant has not only made dishonest improvement regarding his injury but the said statement was also self-contradictory because the complainant himself stated that on seeing the complainant party the accused/appellants fled away from the spot however, on second call of the Court they appeared before the Court and the complainant party identified them. It is not appealable to a prudent mind that had the accused fled away from the spot on seeing the complainant party then they would have re-appeared in order to make them fully identified by the complainant party and to create evidence against them. In support of acclaimed version, neither the prosecution opted to produce copy of bail application of the accused/appellants nor the order sheet of the Court to show attendance of accused/appellants and the complainant on 05.09.2018. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that complainant had neither seen the accused/appellants in the Court nor at the place of occurrence; therefore, his testimony is under serious clouds of doubt which cannot be relied upon. 8. It is further noteworthy that the alleged eye-witnesses manifested unnatural conduct at the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution case, the complainant party was comprising of four persons including the deceased, whereas, the appellants allegedly three in numbers, were not armed with any sort of weapon and the aforementioned eye-witnesses, being close relatives of Rashid Ali (deceased), did not dare to capture any of the accused persons nor made serious efforts to save the deceased during the occurrence. They stood like silent spectators and gave free hand to the accused persons to inflict fist blows to their kith and kin and thereafter, to flee away from the spot. I am therefore, of the view that conduct of the eye-witnesses, who were closely related to Rashid Ali (deceased) was highly unnatural; therefore, their presence at the spot is doubtful and their evidence is not worthy of reliance. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of "Liaquat Ali v. The State" (2008 SCMR 95), "Pathan v. The State" (2015 SCMR 315) and "Zafar v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326). 9. Another piece of evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court in respect of identification of the accused/appellants was in the form of footage allegedly contained in a CD (P-1) and photographs P2/1-22 retrieved from CCTVs Installed by Punjab Safe City Authority, Lahore. Complainant talked about handing over of CD and Photographs by the Expert/Incharge of Safe City Project to investigating officer but PW-12 Ghulam Ali SI/IO deposed about handing over of CD (P-1) only. No certificate of an expert was available nor he or any other witness appeared in the dock to depose about making of video or preparation of photographs from above CCTV footage. PW-12 investigating officer conceded that he did not submit application to SP investigation Iqbal town Lahore seeking permission to see CCTV footage at the office of Safe City Project. He also did not tender in evidence the copy of application made by him before said Incharge nor he recorded his statement. It was claimed by him that though he examined the private CCTV as well which were installed at the place of occurrence, yet did not record the statement of any person in this respect nor took into possession the DVR etc. Thus, it remained a missing fact that who prepared the CD (P-1) and photographs P2/1-22. It is now well settled that photographs can be used as evidence yet it is essential to prove its source. Judgment approved for reporting Crl. Appeal No. 812-22 "Abdul Basit v. State and others" (2024 LHC 4466) is referred in this respect. 10. PW-12 once again went to the office of Safe City Project on 21.06.2018 where he again saw the CCTV footages from where it revealed that motorcycle having registration number LEK-17/1624 was visible in such footage. Such motorcycle with original number was registered in the name of Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Anwar who when associated into investigation could not pass any information in respect of use of motorcycle in the occurrence except promise to produce his son Haziq for further information. On the same day Haziq PW-7 appeared before him and after viewing the photographs stated that persons present in photographs are his friends, i.e., the accused/appellants. Prosecution has also produced Muhammad Aleem Butt PW-6, employer of Ammar Shafi, appellant who claimed his identification through photographs P2/1-22 but did not state the date in his deposition before the Court that as and when he identified him. Such in-direct identification was of no use for the prosecution when photographs were not proved to be genuine. Muhammad Arshad did not enter into the dock nor his son Haziq PW-7 uttered a single word that how such motorcycle had gone into the custody of accused/appellants. Using of fake number plates on motorcycle were also not proved during the trial because accused appellants were not convicted under said charges. 11. Coming back to video evidence contained in CD (P-1), it is noteworthy that no certificate of expert was tendered in evidence nor an expert appeared in the witness box to verify the sanctity/ genuineness of the aforementioned video. It was also incumbent to get a photogrammetry test of accused/appellants from PFSA in order to provide evidence that they are the person visible in video retrieved from CCTV footage. Moreover, neither the Court has examined such CD while playing it in the Court nor it was shown to any witness during his statement who could have identified the assailants in the video. PW-12 investigating officer conceded to this effect in following words; "Video contained in CD is not being played at the moment in the court room" Thus, trial Court has not met the requirement of Articles 71 and 139 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 because CCTV footage can be used either as the documentary evidence or the real evidence. When it is being used as documentary evidence it must be shown to the witness while recording his statement and when it is used as real evidence then court must inspect it with some observations and mere marking it as "P" does not fulfill the requirement. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the contents of CD in accordance with the principles of evidence. Reliance in this respect is placed on case reported as "Numan alias Nomi and others v. The State" (2023 PCr.LJ 1394) and a case approved for reporting, Crl. Appeal No.592-23 "Fakhar Iqbal Shah v. State and others" (2024 LHC 4364). 12. In the instant case CD was obtained from the office of Punjab Safe City project which is being operated under Punjab Safe City Authority Act 2016 and it maintains entirely a separate regime to make admissible the data retrieved from CCTVs installed by the Authority. Let's see what it says. Punjab Safe City Authority was established for the purposes of construction, development and maintenance of a city-wide integrated command, control and communications (IC3) system in the major cities of the Punjab in order to ensure safety and security of the people, and for other purposes. The powers and functions assigned to the Authority under section 4 (2) (g) and (k) of Punjab Safe City Authority Act 2016 (PSCA, 2016) include, to establish and maintain an effective oversight mechanism, and, to perform such other related functions as the Government may assign. Section 14(2) of PSCA, 2016 identifies an employee of such authority as an expert of following category; (2) An employee of the Authority working with information technology related matters shall be deemed to be an expert within the meaning of Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984), and shall be deemed to have been appointed under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898). Section 19 of PSCA, 2016 requires that subject to the Act and the rules, the Authority may, by notification in the official Gazette, frame regulations for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Thus, Punjab Safe Cities Authority Electronic Data Regulations 2016 were framed by Notification No. 6027/PSCA/2016 which were published through Gazette Notification No. 178/2016 dated 2nd December, 2016. According to which "Electronic Data" means any probative data or information in form of video/audio/picture, stored or transmitted in electronic format or on electronic media duly collected, recorded, generated or extracted through the ancillary facilities/equipment installed under the Act. Such data is analysed in "Electronic Data Analysis Cell", which means a room/cabin/office space at IC3 dedicated and equipped for the investigation officers/law enforcement agencies to view/analyse/examine the information/video/audio/ picture for investigation/inquiry or for any lawful purpose. For obtaining of any such data a request is made on "Electronic Data Request Form" which means a document for formal requisition of electronic data stored in the main data centres of IC3 administered/managed by the authority. Such data is provided with a document known as "Electronic Data Certificate" which means document issued by an authorized officer, certifying the genuineness of the electronic material recorded at IC3 with a detailed report of protocols applied by him for collection/extraction/ submission of evidence and said data is provided in "Electronic Data Storage Device" which means a disc/ USB/ CD/ DVD or any other storage medium, in which the electronic data is stored/ transmitted/ provided/sent/made available, for Investigation, Inquiry or Trial. 13. Regulation-9 makes such data as an admissible piece of evidence and explains its presentation in proper form before the Court, format of report with protocols, rearrangement of evidence in consultation with prosecutor; understanding of electronic evidence by the Court; clarity and re-examination by Chief operating officer. Here it is for reference; 9. Procedure to present Electronic, Evidence. - (1) The Electronic Data Storage Device shall be produced and transmitted by the Authority to the Investigation Officers, Law Enforcement Agencies, Courts, Tribunals or any other authorized person for investigation, inquiry or trial as an admissible piece of evidence. (2) The Chief Operating Officer or any other authorized officer of the authority shall issue an Electronic Data Certificate (Annex-B) to verify the genuineness of the Electronic Data and related information. (3) The duly signed and verified Electronic Data Certificate shall be the formal confirmation from the authority of the genuineness of the data and information contained in the Electronic Data Storage device. (4) The Electronic Data Certificate shall contain the technical details of the electronic data in the Electronic Data Storage device. (5) The expert at IC3 centre shall provide full technical assistance to the court or any law enforcement agency in understanding of the forensic or electronic evidence or preparation of copies of the electronic data; if so required. (6) The investigation officer shall make the evidence presentable before the court in consultation with the prosecutor. (7) If the prosecutor requires the collection, recording, generation or extraction of any evidence from any equipment or facility in a particular manner, the investigation officer shall refer the matter to the Chief Operating Officer, who shall re-arrange. the evidence in proper form. (8) If, during any proceeding of Court, Tribunal or any other authorized person finds that opinion of expert is not clear, the matter shall be referred to Chief Operating Officer for clarification, who shall send clarification on the question within 03 days of the receipt of the reference. (9) If the Court or Tribunal directs the Managing Director or the Chief Operating Officer for re-examination of the expert opinion, the Chief Operating Officer shall constitute a panel for the purpose and present the report within 03 days thereof. The cumulative effect of above provisions explains that data in the form of video/audio/pictures obtained from IC3 under Punjab Safe City Authority Act, 2016 and regulations made thereunder in due course of process shall be deemed genuine and admissible in evidence without sending such video/audio/pictures to Punjab Forensic Science Agency. However, such electronic data shall be read in evidence in conjunction with other explanation like photogrammetry test etc. of accused visible therein. In the instant case prosecution has failed to prove the due process adopted for obtaining the data from Safe City Authority nor Electronic Data Certificate was produced about genuineness of such data. Thus