Summary: (a) Ehtesab Act, 1997—Ss. 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d), 4(2), 15(1)—Corruption and corrupt practices—Award of contract in exchange for kickbacks—Prime Minister and spouse implicated—Proof through foreign and local evidence - Reference filed under S.15(1) of the Ehtesab Act, 1997 against Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto, Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Senator Asif Ali Zardari, and others alleged that a pre-shipment inspection (P.S.I.) contract was awarded to M/s. SGS S.A. in exchange for illegal gratification in the form of kickbacks at 6% of contract value. Evidence included: (i) financial documents from Swiss authorities, (ii) remittances from SGS to Bomer Finance Inc.—an offshore company controlled by Asif Ali Zardari through Jens Schlegelmilch, (iii) hand-written ledgers, (iv) hotel bookings paid by Prime Minister House, and (v) presentations manipulated to justify the scheme. It was established that the accused abused their public offices to facilitate the award, concealing SGS's past failures and bypassing objections of Law Division and Customs. Held, sufficient material existed to charge both accused with offences under S.3(1)(a), 3(1)(d) and 4(2) of the Act. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 4, 9, 12 & 175—Protection against retrospective punishment—Due process and fair trial—Jurisdiction of Ehtesab Courts - It was contended that the trial violated constitutional guarantees including Art.12(1) (retrospective penal legislation), and Arts. 4 & 9 (due process and liberty). Held, no violation occurred; the acts of awarding contracts in return for pecuniary advantage were punishable under prior anti-corruption laws (P.O. Nos. 16 & 17 of 1977). Trial under the 1997 Act, therefore, did not infringe Art.12. Further, the Ehtesab Court was validly established under law and followed due process. (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Ss. 265(F), 265(K), 340(2)—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Arts. 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 85, 88–90—Admissibility of foreign documents—Certified copies from Swiss judicial authorities—Presumption of authenticity - Swiss judicial proceedings under mutual legal assistance yielded key documents: contracts, correspondence, bank transactions, and fiduciary instructions proving the kickback trail. Objections were raised to their admissibility on the ground that proceedings before the Swiss Judge were investigative and not judicial. Held, Swiss examining magistrate functioned in a judicial capacity; certified copies obtained from him were admissible under Articles 85, 87, 88, 89 & 90 of the QSO, 1984. The Court also relied on the presumption of genuineness under Art. 90. Commission was rightly issued to verify the signatures and certification of foreign records. (d) Burden of Proof—Failure of defence to rebut prosecution evidence—Adverse inference under Art.129(g), QSO—Defence witnesses not produced—Foreign witness absent - Accused failed to produce any defence evidence despite being given multiple opportunities as directed by the Supreme Court. Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto did not record her statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. as scheduled, nor led any witnesses. Asif Ali Zardari’s nominated foreign witness failed to obtain a visa despite Court facilitation. Held, adverse inference under Art.129(g) QSO was drawn. Prosecution’s circumstantial and documentary evidence remained unrebutted. (e) Role of fiduciary agents—Money laundering—Offshore companies—Indirect benefit to public officeholders—Foreign remittances traced - Mr. Jens Schlegelmilch, acting as fiduciary agent, used offshore entities (Bomer Finance Inc., Mariston Securities, Nassam Overseas) to receive and distribute kickbacks. Accounts were jointly operated for benefit of Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto. Ledger entries and remittance documents confirmed receipt of funds from SGS. Swiss magistrate found prima facie damage to Pakistan due to corruption of the accused. Held, fiduciary structure was deliberately used to conceal bribe proceeds. (f) Accountability—Executive acts vs. personal liability—Collective decision of Cabinet not shield for criminal acts—Ministerial discretion misused - It was argued that the P.S.I. contract was granted by a Cabinet Committee and not unilaterally by the Prime Minister. Held, even if Cabinet was involved, personal misuse of authority for private gain rendered actions criminal. Collective decision-making does not immunize individual culpability when dishonest motives are proven. (g) Evidence—Statements and conduct of co-accused—Inference from official hospitality, records, and repeated visits—Proof of nexus - Visits of Jens Schlegelmilch to Pakistan, payment of hotel bills by PM Secretariat, and documented access to PM House reinforced the nexus between fiduciary agent and the accused. Schlegelmilch’s direct correspondence with SGS, ledger entries detailing 50-50 share of remittances between Bhutto and Zardari, and fiduciary mandates executed in his name corroborated the allegations. Cited Cases: Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto v. State, 1999 SCMR 1447 Safdar Ali v. Crown, PLD 1953 FC 93 S.M. Zaheer v. Syed Fazal Ali Ajmeri, 1974 SCMR 490 E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf, PLD 1964 SC 536 Karamat Ali v. Muhammad Younis, PLD 1983 SC 191 Sh. Sardar Ali v. State, PLD 1987 Lah. 633 State v. Muzaffar Hussain, 1998 MLD 118 Gustad Maneckji Shekdar v. State, PLD 1959 Dacca 756 Disposition: Prosecution established sufficient grounds for framing of charges against both accused under the Ehtesab Act, 1997. Defence failed to rebut allegations. Documents admissible. Reference allowed to proceed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — S. 302(b) — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Extra-judicial confession — Ocular corroboration — Defence of grave provocation — Sentence — Appellant convicted for Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) by striking deceased on head with a spade — No direct eyewitness, but conviction based on consistent circumstantial evidence including appellant's extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapon, corroborated site plan, medical report, and forensic analysis — Appellant confessed guilt in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., pleading that act was committed to protect modesty of his wife — Held, although confession was consistent with circumstantial chain and offence stood proved, conduct of the appellant after the incident showed absence of premeditation and presence of mitigating circumstances — Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to 14 years R.I. with Rs.500,000 compensation — Appeal partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — S. 302(a)(b) — Enhancement of sentence — Principles — Criminal revision filed by complainant seeking enhancement from life imprisonment to death sentence — Held, despite seriousness of offence, evidence indicated mitigating factors including surrender of appellant, non-repetition of attack, and plea of grave provocation — Trial court had already imposed life sentence with fine — High Court found sentence proportionate to facts — Revision dismissed. 2001 SCMR 1474; 2007 SCMR 518; 2010 SCMR 55 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 342, 340(2) — Confessional statement — Appellant’s own admission under S. 342 Cr.P.C. that he struck deceased with spade while preventing an alleged attempted assault on his wife — Held, voluntary admission constituted strong evidence and aligned with other circumstantial proof — Defence plea of private defence was not substantiated to the standard required by law — Right of private defence does not extend to disproportionate use of force where reasonable apprehension of danger is not clearly established. (d) Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Extra-judicial confession — Legal value — Extra-judicial confession before three PWs found to be consistent and unrebutted — Defence failed to dislodge their presence at scene or credibility during cross-examination — Medical and forensic evidence consistent with prosecution version — Held, confession corroborated by independent pieces of evidence, forming an unbroken chain leading to conclusion of guilt. 2018 MLD 1654; 1992 SCMR 1983; 2017 SCMR 2036 ref. Disposition: Conviction maintained. Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years R.I. with Rs.500,000 compensation under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence dismissed.

Summary: (a) Evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, in an eventuality, where an occurrence is not only a nocturnal-one but it also berefts of ocular or direct account. (b) Delayed plea of alibi has no worth and value in eyes of law, especially, when during the course of trial an accused person could not put-forward any evidence in his own defence within the meaning of section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. (c) Testimony of an injured eyewitness is required to be adjudged with judicious and independent mind in light of attending circumstances of each and every case. (d) When an occurrence took place without any planning or premeditation on part of an accused person, then benefit of such an eventuality can be extended to accused in terms of reduction of his/her sentence. (e) Distinction between punishment awarded U/S section 311 PPC in terms of Ta’zir or Qisas.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 ----Ss. 3 & 4 – Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 4 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 340(2) & 342 – Forcible dispossession – Proof – Scope – Complainant alleged purchase of property through agreement to sell, payment of part consideration, and forcible dispossession by appellant in collusion with police officials – Police officials named as co-accused were not summoned; order of non-summoning attained finality – Police report confirmed ownership remained with vendor (Mst. Asmat Zahra) due to non-payment of balance consideration; no illegal dispossession established – Complaint filed two months after alleged occurrence without recourse to any forum in the interim – Delay unexplained – Ocular account of PWs riddled with contradictions; key witness admitted he did not witness dispossession; another stated he left scene before conclusion of alleged possession-taking; alleged tenant admitted voluntarily vacating premises – Complaint never exhibited during trial, hence could not be read in evidence – Held, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant. Cited Cases: • Jehangir Khalil v. Ghulam Farooq [PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 651] • Messrs Kala Khan Tareen, Coal Co. Duki v. Mehrab Khan (2010 YLR 1969) • Mazhar Iqbal v. The State (2022 MLD 752) (b) Criminal jurisprudence – Benefit of doubt ----Principle – Where prosecution evidence is inconsistent, contradicted by record, and material documents are inadmissible for want of formal proof, conviction cannot be sustained – Any doubt arising from evidence must be resolved in favour of accused. Outcome: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges – Bail bonds and sureties discharged.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b); Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 340(2), 512; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Arts. 17, 70 & 71—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—FIR—Delay and manipulation—Acquittal—Allegation against appellant of causing firearm injury to deceased in a retaliatory attack—FIR purportedly lodged promptly on complainant’s statement at spot; however, record revealed unexplained delay of about one and a half hours despite police station being only two kilometres away—Medical records showed injured witnesses were in police custody before FIR registration—Inquest report showed deceased was identified by persons other than alleged eyewitnesses—Key police constable who carried complaint to police station not produced—Registers No. 1 & 2 (FIR Register and Station Diary) manipulated to give false impression of prompt FIR—Non-production of material witness in such circumstances held fatal—Prosecution’s version of promptness disbelieved—Guidance sought from Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Related witnesses—Independent witness hostile—Presence at crime scene doubtful—Out of three cited eyewitnesses, two were related to deceased and one independent (PW.12) turned hostile—Independent witness deposed that two unknown muffled persons committed offence and did not recognize accused in Court—Related witnesses’ credibility shaken: complainant (PW.10), aged 85/86 years, admitted deteriorated eyesight and hearing for preceding 5–6 years and unawareness of statement contents; another witness (PW.11) admitted appellant resided in Karachi at relevant time—Both related eyewitnesses not shown to have identified deceased in inquest report—Material contradiction creating doubt about their presence—Reliance placed on Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449). (c) Criminal trial ----Injured witnesses—Non-production—Effect—Two injured bystanders named in FIR neither joined investigation nor appeared at trial; prosecution admitted their refusal to depose—IO conceded none of them were summoned—Adverse inference drawn that their evidence would not have supported prosecution—Non-production of Rescue-1122 staff who allegedly transported injured/deceased further weakened case—Reliance placed on Qadir Bakhsh v. State [PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157 (DB)]. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Medical evidence—Scope—Deceased sustained seventeen injuries including nine firearm entry wounds—Appellant attributed only one injury—Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence—Medical evidence corroborative only and cannot by itself connect accused to crime—Reliance placed on Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103). (e) Criminal trial ----Motive—Failure to prove—Effect—Prosecution alleged prior murder of brother of co-accused as motive; complainant admitted appellant and co-accused were neither complainants nor witnesses in that case—Motive held unsubstantiated—Where motive is alleged but not proved, benefit goes to accused—Reliance placed on Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670). (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Recovery of weapon—Lack of forensic link—.30 bore pistol recovered at instance of appellant—PFSA report showed crime-empty did not match recovered pistol—Recovery held inconsequential. Conclusion: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Multiple material infirmities including delayed/manipulated FIR, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, non-production of injured and independent witnesses, failure to prove motive, and lack of forensic corroboration—Benefit of doubt extended—Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted—Bail bonds discharged. Cited Cases: Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326) Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449) Qadir Bakhsh v. State [PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157 (DB)] Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103) Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670)

Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)—Qatl-i-Amd—Conviction—Sentence reduced from death to imprisonment for life—Mitigating circumstances Appellant was convicted under S. 302(b), PPC for committing Qatl-i-Amd by firing at the deceased Khalid Mehmood with a pistol at THQ Hospital, Depalpur—Trial court awarded death sentence—High Court found ocular account of complainant and PW-2 supported by court witnesses CW-6 and CW-7, medical evidence, and forensic report—However, mitigating circumstances existed: appellant was not present during initial motive quarrel; he fired at the deceased in a state of reaction upon seeing his father and brother in injured condition—Held, although conviction was maintained, circumstances warranted commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment—Compensation under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. and sentence in default thereof upheld—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. also extended. Cited Cases: • Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah PLD 1962 SC 502 • Abdul Rauf v. The State 2004 CrLJ 12 • Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 342, 340(2), 382-B—Statement of accused—Evidentiary value—Failure to appear under oath or produce defence—Benefit of sentencing provisions Appellant in his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. offered a defence of false implication due to personal vendetta, alleging the deceased initiated the assault—He did not appear as witness under S. 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor adduce any evidence—Held, bald denial not substantiated by evidence has no legal weight—Benefit under S. 382-B Cr.P.C. granted in view of sentence reduction from death to life imprisonment. (c) Evidence—Ocular account—Medical and forensic corroboration—Minor discrepancy in injury locale—Legal effect Complainant and PW-2 described firearm injury to chest; postmortem revealed entry wound in upper abdomen—Held, such minor variance immaterial due to close anatomical proximity and human estimation during stressful events—Forensic evidence confirmed firearm used by appellant matched recovered crime empties—Testimony of court witnesses present at hospital was natural, impartial, and fully corroborative. (d) Principle of Estoppel—Maxims—Self-defence claim—Inapplicability where aggressor initiates violence Appellant claimed self-defence—Rejected by court—Held, a person who initiates the attack cannot claim benefit of self-defence—Appellant’s own act of retaliatory violence upon seeing injured relatives does not justify fatal shooting—Court referred to legal maxims: Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria and Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet. Disposition: Appeal dismissed with modification—Conviction under S. 302(b), PPC maintained—Death sentence converted to life imprisonment—Murder Reference answered in negative—Compensation and default sentence upheld—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. allowed.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149 Murder case—Conviction and sentence—Benefit of the doubt—Principles—The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, trespassed into the complainant’s house and attacked his son, causing fatal injuries—The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with compensation to the legal heirs—The High Court, on appeal, noted that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days despite the presence of police soon after the incident—The complainant’s conduct in not reporting the matter promptly raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case—The investigating officer failed to record statements of medical professionals treating the deceased, and no conclusive forensic evidence was produced to support the prosecution's version—Held, that in criminal cases, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the accused—Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside and accused acquitted. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others (2003 SCMR 477) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 342, 340(2) Right of accused to defend—Failure of prosecution to establish guilt—The accused neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence—His statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. asserted false implication due to previous enmity—Prosecution’s failure to present independent evidence and reliance on contradictory witness statements led to acquittal—Held, the accused is not required to prove his innocence; the burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Admissibility of delayed FIR and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence Delay in lodging FIR—Contradictions in witness testimonies—Effect—FIR was registered after an unexplained delay despite police presence at the scene—Medical evidence and postmortem reports contradicted witness statements—No proper record of police inquiries or 1122 emergency reports was produced—High Court observed that such inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case—Held, delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation, coupled with contradictions in evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution’s version and entitles the accused to acquittal. (d) Criminal Law—Acquittal of co-accused ----Double presumption of innocence—Interference by appellate court The complainant sought enhancement of the sentence and conviction of co-accused—Trial court acquitted co-accused due to lack of independent evidence connecting them to the crime—High Court reaffirmed the acquittal, noting that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court’s judgment is perverse, illegal, or results in a miscarriage of justice—Held, an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, and in the absence of strong incriminating evidence, the trial court’s decision must be upheld—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others (2003 SCMR 477) Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 27878-J of 2022 (filed by accused): Allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and accused acquitted. Criminal Revision No. 27876 of 2022 (filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence): Dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 27874 of 2022 (filed by complainant against acquittal of co-accused): Dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997 – Section 9(c) ----Proof beyond reasonable doubt—Prosecution alleged recovery of 20 kg of charas from the appellant—Deficiencies in safe custody, chain of custody, and procedural irregularities raised significant doubts about the prosecution's case—Held, the prosecution must establish its case independently, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases under CNSA, where stringent punishments are prescribed—The benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal. Cited Cases: The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380) Ahmed Ali and another v. The State (2023 SCMR 781) ------ (b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1898 – Articles 342, 340(2) ----Accused's plea and burden of proof—Appellant claimed to be an innocent passenger in the vehicle and alleged police malfeasance—Failure to provide independent evidence by the appellant does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond doubt—Prosecution cannot rely on weaknesses in the defence case to secure a conviction—Held, the presumption of innocence prevails in the absence of conclusive evidence. Cited Cases: Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Bashir Begum v. Safdar Ali (2000 SCMR 1038) (c) Evidence Law – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Articles 72, 73, 76 & 164 ----Admissibility of photographic evidence—Photographs introduced during the trial were neither authenticated nor substantiated through secondary evidence—Held, inadmissible photographs cannot be used to impeach witness credibility or form the basis for derivative testimony—Statements influenced by such inadmissible photographs are legally irrelevant and inadmissible. Cited Cases: R v. Treacy (1944) 2 All ER 229 The State v. Razia Sultana (2019 SCMR 1300) (d) Disposition ----Criminal Appeal No. 531/2020—The appeal was accepted—The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine under Section 9(c) of CNSA were set aside—The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in another case. This summary adheres to the legal journal format, encapsulating legal principles, procedural details, cited case law, and the final decision.

Summary: If witnesses are present at considerable distance from the place where deceased received injuries by the hands of assailant(s) and grown up crop is intervening the places then witnesses' deposition with specification of roles of assailants qua inflicting firearm injuries is not believable; though complainant annexed site plan with changed detail of place of occurrence with complaint, yet did not negate correctness of site plan annexed with state case as well as Naqsha Khasra detailed in Column No.24 of the inquest report during trial of the case, hence, changed site plan is of no help to the case of complainant ----- (a) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt ---Failure of prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt** The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to numerous contradictions in the evidence, including discrepancies in the site plan, failure to explain the delay in reporting the incident, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The benefit of doubt was extended to the accused as a matter of right. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). (b) Evidentiary Contradictions—Role of Witnesses and Site Plan ---Inconsistencies in witnesses' positions and fabricated site plans** The unscaled site plan contradicted the scaled site plan, with material alterations made to place witnesses closer to the scene of the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses failed to establish their presence at the scene, casting doubt on the ocular account. (c) Delay in Lodging FIR—Impact on Prosecution's Case ---Seven-hour delay in FIR registration without explanation** The unexplained delay of seven hours in reporting the incident created suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution's case. The delay indicated embellishments and afterthoughts in the FIR. (d) Recovery of Weapons—Chain of Custody ---Break in chain of custody and tampering allegations** The prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of recovered weapons and crime empties. Contradictions between the investigating officer and moharrar regarding the timeline of recovery and submission to the forensic lab raised serious doubts, rendering the forensic report unreliable. (e) Motive—Weak and Contradictory Evidence ---Dispute over irrigation water lacked credible evidence** The motive for the crime, alleged to be a dispute over irrigation water, was weak and unsupported by evidence. Contradictions in the complainant's statements and lack of corroboration further weakened the prosecution's case. (f) Acquittal—Presumption of Innocence ---Double presumption of innocence** The acquittal of respondents Nos.2 & 3 by the trial court was upheld. The judgment did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence. The principle of double presumption of innocence applied. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar (2003 SCMR 477). ------ Disposition: Criminal Appeal No.79031-J of 2019: Allowed; convictions and sentences of appellants Abid Ali, Tariq Ali, and Muhammad Arshad set aside. Murder Reference No.29 of 2020: Answered in the negative; death sentence of appellant Abid Ali not confirmed. Criminal Revision No.2385 of 2020: Dismissed; no enhancement of sentences for respondents Nos.2 & 3. Criminal Appeal No.2384 of 2020: Dismissed; acquittal of respondents Nos.2 & 3 upheld.