Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Larkana, for offenses under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 215 PPC. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fined Rs. 50,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of default. He was also sentenced to one year RI under Section 215 PPC. The case involved an incident where the complainant alleged that Naeem Ahmed, along with others, robbed his motorcycle and later demanded ransom for its return. The appellant challenged the conviction, and the case was transferred to the Federal Shariat Court due to the involvement of Hudood laws. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient and credible evidence to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the inconsistencies in witness testimonies cast doubt on the prosecution's case. 3- Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence before convicting the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. --Lack of Credible Evidence: The court found that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to support the conviction. The testimonies of the complainant and the witnesses were inconsistent and contradicted each other on key aspects of the case, such as the identification of the accused and the sequence of events. The complainant's failure to immediately report the crime to the police and the 33-day delay in filing the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case. --Inconsistent Testimonies: The court noted significant contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. For example, the complainant and witnesses provided conflicting accounts regarding whether they knew the accused and the circumstances surrounding the payment of the ransom. These inconsistencies created reasonable doubt about the appellant's involvement in the alleged crime. --Failure to Produce Evidence: The prosecution did not present any ownership documents for the allegedly stolen motorcycle or any other evidence that could establish the complainant's legal possession of the motorcycle. The lack of such evidence further undermined the prosecution's case. --Right to Benefit of Doubt: Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the lack of credible evidence, the court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The trial court's failure to properly evaluate the evidence and consider these inconsistencies led to the wrongful conviction of the appellant. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was overturned, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. His bail bond was canceled, and the surety was discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Muhammad Zaman vs. The State (2014 SCMR 749) These precedents emphasize the principle that even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to acquit the accused, as the benefit of the doubt must always be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

Summary: Background: A company engaged in activities related to finance and investment encountered a significant issue concerning the classification of a certain investment scheme under the Finance Act 2019. The regulatory authorities scrutinized this scheme and challenged its compliance with the legal framework established for financial investments. The company, seeking clarification and confirmation of the scheme's legality, brought the matter before a court to resolve the conflict. ----Issues: 1- Whether the investment scheme in question falls under the purview of the Finance Act 2019. 2- The proper interpretation of the provisions of the Finance Act 2019 as they relate to this specific investment scheme. 3- The implications of the scheme’s classification on the company’s operations and obligations under the Finance Act. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the investment scheme does indeed fall under the classification stipulated by the Finance Act 2019. The court reasoned that the specific provisions of the Act were clear in their application to investment schemes of this nature, and the scheme in question met all criteria outlined by the Act. The ruling emphasized that the company must adhere to the regulatory requirements set forth in the Act, including any associated compliance measures and reporting obligations. As a result, the court directed the company to align its practices with the Finance Act's provisions and comply with all related regulatory requirements. This decision clarified the legal standing of such investment schemes and reinforced the need for companies to ensure their compliance with financial regulations. ----Citations/Precedents: Finance Act 2019, Section

Summary: Background: Baz Muhammad, along with co-accused, was charged under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for his involvement in a robbery and murder. The complainant, Ali Ahmad (son of the deceased), filed an FIR based on information that his father, Niaz Ahmad, a taxi driver, was murdered by three individuals, including the appellant, after being hired for a trip from Quetta to Pishin. Hisam-ud-Din, one of the co-accused, had confessed to the crime and implicated Baz Muhammad. The trial court convicted Baz Muhammad, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500,000. Baz Muhammad appealed the conviction. --- Issues: 1) Was the appellant's conviction based on sufficient evidence, particularly the judicial confession? ---2) Could the judicial confession of the co-accused, Hisam-ud-Din, be used as evidence against the appellant? ---3) Did the delay in recording the appellant’s judicial confession affect its admissibility? ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Insufficient Evidence: The court found that the only evidence against the appellant was the confessional statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Naeem Khan. However, the court ruled that this confession was not made voluntarily and suffered from legal infirmities, including a delay in recording and inconsistent facts regarding the appellant’s involvement. --- Judicial Confession: The court concluded that the confession made by the co-accused Hisam-ud-Din could not be used against the appellant, as both were not tried jointly, which is a requirement for such evidence to be admissible as circumstantial evidence. ---- Delay in Confession: The appellant’s confession was recorded five days after his arrest, during which time he was in police custody. This delay, combined with the absence of an explanation for why the confession was not recorded immediately, led the court to doubt the voluntariness of the confession. The court referred to precedents emphasizing that delays over 24 hours in recording confessions are usually considered fatal. As a result, the court acquitted Baz Muhammad and set aside the trial court’s conviction. ---- Citations/Precedents: Hashim Qasim and Another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Muhammad Pervez and Others v. The State and Others (2007 SCMR 670) Naqeebullah's Case (PLD 1978 SC 21) Muhammad Sadiq v. Hajeeb Ali (1995 SCMR 1632) Rohtas Khan v. The State (2010 SCMR 566) Ghulam Qadir and 2 Others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v. The State (2008 SCMR 1572)

Summary: Background: Adnan Rasheed, the appellant and son of the deceased, filed FIR No. 139/2015 after his father was murdered in a house invasion on the night of March 29-30, 2015. The unknown assailants, armed with pistols, entered the home, and one of them fatally shot the appellant's father, Abdur Rasheed. Another shot injured Faizan Rasheed, the appellant’s brother, who tried to resist the assailants. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Later, the charges were replaced with an offense under Section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court acquitted all the accused (respondents) on November 10, 2016, which led to the appellant challenging the acquittal in this appeal. --- Issues: 1) Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. ---2) Whether the judicial confessions made by respondents Gul Nawaz and Mubarik Zeb were sufficient to prove the guilt of all the respondents. ---3) Whether the evidence, including forensic reports and recoveries, was sufficient to overturn the acquittal. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Acquittal Grounds: The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient and unconvincing. The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence did not meet the legal threshold for a conviction. --- Judicial Confessions: The court found that the judicial confessions made by respondents Gul Nawaz and Mubarik Zeb were contradictory and could not be relied upon. The confessions did not align with the overall evidence and raised doubts about their voluntary nature due to irregularities in the recording process, such as the respondents remaining in handcuffs during the confession. Forensic Evidence and Recoveries: The recovery of weapons and the forensic reports, which linked the respondents' weapons to the crime, were not deemed sufficient to establish guilt. The court noted that the handling and submission of the weapons and empties to the forensic lab were flawed, raising doubts about their credibility. Contradictory Testimonies: The testimonies of the complainant and injured witnesses contained contradictions regarding key details, such as the number of assailants and the sequence of events. This further weakened the prosecution’s case. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's acquittal was upheld. ---- Citations/Precedents: Atlas Khan Vs. The State (1995 P.Cr.L.J. 1996) Amal Sherin and Another Vs. The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 371) Muslim Shah Vs. The State (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 168) Ghulam Sikandar and Another Vs. Mamaraz Khan and Others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11) Rahimullah Jan Vs. Kashif and Another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 298) Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain and Others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 53) Captain Abdul Rahim Vs. Naeem Sagar and Others (2009 SCMR 288) The State and Others Vs. Abdul Khaliq and Others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554) Muhammad Zaman Vs. The State and Others (2014 SCMR 749) Muhammad Israr and 5 Others Vs. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J. 383) Shirimati Seetan Vs. The State (1988 P.Cr.L.J. 939)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The petitioner challenged an order summoning him in a private complaint filed by the respondent. The complaint arose from an earlier case where the respondent was accused of zina, but was acquitted. The petitioner, a police officer, had investigated the initial complaint, which was later found to be false. Despite his acquittal in a related case, the respondent filed a new complaint under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, accusing the petitioner of wrongful actions during the investigation. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner can be summoned and tried under the Offence of Qazf Ordinance based on the private complaint filed by the respondent. 2- Whether the summoning order was legally justified given the acquittal of the respondent in the previous cases and the substantial delay in filing the complaint. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the order summoning the petitioner was not sustainable. The petitioner's actions were within the scope of his official duties, and there was no evidence of malicious intent or wrongdoing in his investigation. The court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in related cases and that the complaint was filed significantly after the alleged incident. The summoning order was set aside, as the charges against the petitioner were deemed groundless and the process had been misapplied. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 154-156 Cr.P.C. Article 171 of Police Order 2002 Article 172 of Police Order 2002 Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 Judgment dated 25.02.2010 Judgment dated 27.05.2014 Order dated 26.01.2016

Summary: Background: The appellants, Suhbat Khan, Amjid, and Jehanzada, were convicted for the murder of Haroon Ahmed, whose body was discovered on May 19, 2011. Haroon Ahmed went missing on May 16, 2011, and his body was later found in a canal in Dargai. The appellants were arrested and charged under sections 302, 364, 34, 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed fines, in addition to other charges. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the appellants. ---2) Whether the delay in reporting the missing person undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. ---3) Whether the medical evidence corroborated the confessional statements and other circumstantial evidence. ---4) Whether the recoveries of the stolen vehicle parts and the mobile phone of the deceased were sufficient to link the appellants to the crime. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court overturned the trial court's conviction and acquitted the appellants based on several key points: The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The confessional statement of Amjid did not align with the medical evidence. No ligature marks were found on the deceased, which contradicted the claim of strangulation in the confession. The medical report did not conclusively determine the cause of death, and no post-mortem was conducted to confirm the nature of the injuries. The delay of 27 days in reporting the missing person and the absence of a plausible explanation for this delay weakened the prosecution's case. The recoveries of the vehicle parts and the mobile phone were deemed insufficient as the items had no unique identifying marks and were commonly available in the market. As a result, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered their release. --- Citations/Precedents: Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274) Qaiser Ali v. The State (2016 SD 560) State through the Advocate General N.W.F.P Peshawar v. Shahjehan (PLD 2003 SC 70) Muhammad Abrar v. The State (2014 YLR 537) Muhammad Mukhtiar alias Moju v. The State (2010 PCr. LJ 1750) Ali Khan v. The State (1999 SCMR 955) MD. Nazir Hussain Sarkar and another (1969 SCMR 388)

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted for the murder of a woman under Section 17 (4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The incident occurred on 05.05.2002, when the complainant's wife was attacked and killed by the appellants and another person at the complainant’s residence. The prosecution presented evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and the trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a monetary compensation. The appellants filed an appeal against this conviction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants were correctly identified and involved in the murder. 2- Whether the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants was based on sufficient evidence, despite the appellants' claims of false implication and alleged contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant’s daughter-in-law, was credible and sufficient to link the appellants to the crime. The court noted that there was direct evidence connecting the appellants to the murder and that the minor contradictions in witness testimony did not undermine the prosecution's case. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants' life sentences and compensation order were affirmed. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2003 SC 704: Muhammad Amjad v. State 1995 SCMR 1793: Zakir Khan v. State 2005 SCMR 810: Elahi Bakhsh v. State 2007 SCMR 808: Ghulam Nabi v. The State

Summary: Background: A contract was entered into between two parties for the supply of goods. One party failed to deliver the goods as per the agreed schedule. The aggrieved party sought legal recourse, claiming damages for the breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the aggrieved party, awarding damages based on the loss suffered due to the delay. ----Issues: 1- Whether the breach of contract occurred due to the fault of the supplier. 2- Whether the damages awarded by the trial court were appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court held that the trial court's finding of breach was correct. It was established that the delay in delivery was indeed caused by the supplier’s failure to perform under the contract. The court upheld the damages awarded, finding them to be reasonable and consistent with the loss suffered by the aggrieved party. The appellate court emphasized that damages are meant to put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, and in this case, the trial court's decision adequately reflected that principle.

Summary: Background: This case involves an appeal against a conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The appellants were convicted for the processing and selling of local liquor, an offense punishable under the Prohibition Order. The trial court sentenced them to two years and two months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, with additional imprisonment for non-payment of the fine. The appellants appealed the decision, arguing that their confession was coerced and that the case was fabricated. ----Issues: 1- Whether the confession of the appellants was voluntary or coerced. 2- Whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. 3- Whether the appellants' claims of fabricated evidence due to personal enmity were substantiated. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's conviction. The Court reasoned that: The confession of the appellants was voluntarily given, as they had been properly warned about the consequences of their confession. They confirmed that their admission was made without any coercion. The prosecution's evidence was comprehensive and unchallenged. This included chemical examination reports corroborating the presence of alcohol in the seized substances. The appellants' prior criminal history and involvement in similar cases indicated habitual offending, which justified the trial court's sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 Chemical Examiner’s Report dated 26.03.2015 Previous criminal cases involving the appellants, as documented in the trial court records

Summary: Background: The appeal and revision proceedings involve a case where the appellant was convicted under section 396 PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The complainant and others filed a revision for the enhancement of this sentence to death. The case stems from an incident on January 19, 2013, where the appellant allegedly hired a vehicle, attacked the driver, and stole the car, leading to the driver's death. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction under section 396 PPC was justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the sentence should be enhanced from life imprisonment to death based on the gravity of the offense. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court found that the conviction under section 396 PPC was supported by sufficient evidence, including witness testimonies and a confessional statement by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant’s confessional statement, recorded after fulfilling legal requirements, was credible despite claims of torture. The recovery of the stolen vehicle and weapon from the appellant, as well as the corroboration from witnesses, supported the conviction. The Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence but did not find grounds for enhancement to death penalty. The appellant’s criminal revision and the complainant’s request for sentence enhancement were reviewed in detail, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented. The Court concluded that while the crime was severe, the existing sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 1999 SC 269 (Muhammad Bashir Ahmad alias Bashir Vs. The State) PLD 1994 FSC 24 (Dilbar and another Vs. The State) 2005 M.L.D 1620 (The State and others Vs. Rahim Dad and others) PLD 1978 SC 21 (Naqibullah and another Vs. The State) 2011 P.Cr.L.J 48 (Siraj Ahmed Vs. The State) 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1381 (Abdul Mujeeb Vs. The State)