Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) – Sections 302(b), 109, 114, 34: Conviction for murder – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal –– Appellant convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death by the trial court –– Prosecution case based on the alleged extramarital affair of the deceased’s wife with the appellant, leading to a conspiracy to murder the deceased –– Trial court acquitted co-accused, including the wife of the deceased, for lack of evidence –– Prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses, both related to the deceased, who failed to establish their presence at the time of the incident –– Their testimonies were riddled with inconsistencies, including delayed FIR registration, delayed postmortem, and failure to provide material details –– Held, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. [Rehmat Ullah & Others v. The State & Others (2024 SCMR 1782) relied upon.] (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) – Section 103: Recovery of weapon – No evidentiary value –– Recovery of 30-bore pistol allegedly used in the commission of the crime was made from an open space accessible to all –– Witnesses to the recovery were related to the deceased –– No corroborative forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime scene –– Held, recovery of weapon in such circumstances was unreliable and could not be used as corroborative evidence against the appellant. [Arshad Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 564) relied upon.] (c) Delay in FIR and postmortem – Effect: Delay in lodging FIR and conducting postmortem creates doubts in prosecution case –– The occurrence took place at 1:40 p.m., but FIR was lodged at 4:45 p.m. with no explanation for the delay –– Postmortem conducted after 9 hours and 50 minutes without justification –– Delay suggests possibility of afterthought and deliberation –– Held, unexplained delay in setting the law into motion casts doubt on the prosecution's version. [Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali & Others (PLD 2003 SC 14) followed.] (d) Supplementary statement – Nomination of accused through supplementary statement – Effect: Accused not named in FIR – Subsequent nomination raises doubts –– Appellant was not initially nominated in the FIR but was implicated later through a supplementary statement –– Complainant alleged mental shock as the reason for omitting the name of the accused initially, but no medical evidence was produced to support this claim –– Courts have disapproved of afterthought supplementary statements used to falsely implicate an accused –– Held, supplementary statements, unless corroborated by strong independent evidence, have little evidentiary value. [Khalid Javed v. The State (2003 SCMR 1419), Akhtar Ali & Others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) followed.] (e) Medical evidence – Contradiction with ocular evidence: Contradiction between eyewitness account and forensic evidence – Impact –– Prosecution eyewitnesses claimed that the accused fired from a distance of 2 karams (approximately 12 feet) –– However, medical examination showed burnt margins around the entry wounds, indicating that shots were fired from a much closer range (within 2 feet) –– Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence raised serious doubts about the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses –– Held, ocular testimony must align with medical evidence; contradictions render the prosecution case doubtful. [Riasat Ali & Fakhar Zaman v. The State & Another (2024 SCMR 1224) relied upon.] (f) Motive – Failure to prove – Effect: Prosecution must suffer if motive is alleged but not proven –– Prosecution claimed the deceased’s wife had illicit relations with the accused, but no concrete evidence was produced to substantiate this assertion –– Extra-judicial confession attributed to the co-accused (since acquitted) was not supported by any independent witness –– Investigation revealed that both the deceased and the accused were living abroad and had returned shortly before the incident –– Held, motive was not proved, and failure to prove motive weakens the prosecution case. [Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State & Another (2022 SCMR 1567), Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449) followed.] ----Disposition: Criminal appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Murder Reference answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The applicants, four individuals, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.165/2022, registered at Police Station Mehar, involving charges under sections 440, 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Their initial request for bail was denied by the I-Additional Session Judge, Mehar, on 01.07.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of the charges against them. 2- Whether the applicants fall within the exceptions that would justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The offenses for which the applicants are charged carry punishments of less than ten years, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The general principle is that granting bail in such cases is the rule, and refusal is the exception. This principle is supported by several precedents from the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions meriting denial of bail applied to the applicants. The exceptions include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or repeating the offense. There was no material evidence presented to substantiate these grounds. The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The decision should be based tentatively on the material available on record. The court allowed the bail application, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants on the same terms and conditions. The complainant was given the liberty to seek cancellation of the bail upon receipt of the final medical certificate if it indicated offenses carrying capital punishment. ----Citations/Precedents: Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488) Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc (2021 SCMR 822) Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)

Summary: Appellant filed appeal against Conviction and Sentenced for the offence U/S 302,338-B, 337-H(2), 386, 114, 34 P.P.C r/w S-7(a) & (h) of Anti-Terrorism Act. Samina wife of Complainant she was signer/artist. At the time of incident she was pregnant of eight months. Samina as usual was singing a song at stage. Tarique Ali, with two unknown culprits, whose faces were open armed with Pistols they by pointing their Pistols asked his wife Mst. Samina that she may sing a song in standing position. On that his wife Mst. Samina told to them that she was running pregnancy On hearing so, they asked my wife Mst. Samina that if she would not sing a song in standing position, then she may be ready for death Tarique Ali Jatoi fired at his wife Mst. Samina, when she was giving instructions to her co artist . She died It was told by the lady doctor that baby in womb of Mst. Samina had also died. The complainant who is the husband of the deceased had changed his entire version given by him in the FIR at the time of recoding his evidence. He completely exonerated the appellant. In the FIR he shows himself as an eye witness while during his examination-in-chief he deposed that he was informed through phonethat his wife sustained firearm injury on such he rushed at hospital where he came to know that his wife has already died. Two more eyewitnesses not supported the case of prosecution. Both the witnesses exonerated the appellant and not supported. Criminal jail appeal was allowed Appellant Tarique Ali Jatoi was acquitted of the charge .

Summary: Bail Dismissed (Dismissed Bail Before arrest Section 324, 114,147,148,149, 337-A (i), 337-F (i), 504 PPC.) --- The judge observed that the injuries sustained by the victims were severe and caused by a blunt weapon, implicating Sajan Leghari specifically. The judge noted the statutory prohibition against granting pre-arrest bail in such cases and highlighted the necessity for Sajan Leghari's surrender to the police. The judge dismissed the bail application, recalling the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to Sajan Leghari. The decision was based on the premise that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had participated in the alleged offenses, and the case did not warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. ''Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and whileseeking guidance from the judgment of Honorable Supreme Court inthe cases of Chaudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State (1995 SCMR1249), Muhammad Umar vs. the State and another (PLD 2004Supreme Court 477), Alam Zeb and another v. State and others (PLD2014 S.C. 760) and Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari. Vs. State and others.(PLD 2021 SC 738), I am of the tentative view that the case ofapplicants does not fall within the ambit of ìfurther inquiryî fallingwithin the ambit of section 497(2) Cr. P.C, rather there arereasonable grounds for believing that the applicants haveparticipated in commission of alleged offenses. ''