Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 337/F1, 34 of the APC, and Section 20 of The Offenses against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.5,000 by the Tehsil Criminal Court Fathepur Thakyala. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the Additional District Criminal Court, Kotli, resulted in acquittal for the offense under Section 337/F-1/APC but maintained the sentence under Sections 20 EHA and 382 APC. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermines the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the compliance with Section 103 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the involvement of independent witnesses during recovery was met. 3- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient and credible to uphold the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delay in Lodging the FIR: The Court noted the incident occurred on 25.09.2013 at 9:30 pm, but the FIR was lodged the next day at 10:45 am without a plausible explanation for the delay. This delay casts doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution’s case, as unexplained delays suggest deliberation and negotiation. --Non-Compliance with Section 103, Cr.P.C.: The recovery of Rs.25,000 from the appellant's house did not involve independent civil witnesses, violating Section 103, Cr.P.C. The witnesses involved were close relatives of the complainant, making them interested parties and thus unreliable. --Credibility of Evidence: The Court found the prosecution’s evidence inconsistent and untrustworthy. The incident allegedly happened at night without any established source of light for identification. The sole evidence of the complainant, not corroborated by other credible evidence, was insufficient to uphold the conviction. The Court emphasized that any doubt arising from the evidence must benefit the accused. The High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, acquitting the appellant of all charges. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown, PLD 1951 Lahore 66 Tawaib Khan v. The State, PLD 1970 SC 13 Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed, PLD 1973 SC 418 Bakka v. The State, 1977 SCMR 150 Rehmat Ali v. The State, 1994 P.Cr.L.J 475 Mehmood Ahmed v. The State, 1995 SCMR 127 Salamat Masih v. State, 1995 P.Cr.LJ 811 Mushtaq Ahmed v. State, PLD 1996 SC 574 Nooruddin v. Abdul Waheed, PLD 1997 Karachi 6 Kamil Zaman v. The State, 1999 P.Cr.LJ 1546 Akhtar Ali v. State, PLJ 2008 SC 269 Arshad Mahmood v. Raja M. Asghar, 2008 SCR 345 State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, AIR 2013 SC 2207 Khalil v. State, 2017 SCMR 960 Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat, PLD 2019 SC 527 Aqil v. State, 2023 SCMR 831 Lal Bux v. The State, 2023 YLR 321 Abdul Majeed v. State, 2023 P.Cr.LJ 331

Summary: Background: An appeal was filed under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, against the judgment passed by the Additional Session Judge, Mirpur, on 16.12.2021. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000. In case of default in payment of the fine, the appellant would face an additional three months of imprisonment. The appellant was also granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. An FIR (No. 102/2021) under sections 9-C and 32 of CNSA was registered against the appellant at Police Station City Mirpur on 16.05.2021. The trial court ordered the prosecution to present evidence after the appellant pleaded not guilty. Nine prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.) recorded their statements. The trial court convicted the appellant based on this evidence, leading to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence presented by the prosecution. 2- Whether the absence of independent witnesses at the public place of arrest affects the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the delay in sending the recovered material for chemical examination impacts the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court's decision was scrutinized, revealing that no private witnesses were involved despite the arrest occurring in a public place. This omission violated Section 103, Cr.P.C, and raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution's story. The delay in sending the contraband for chemical examination (six days) contradicted Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates sending the material within 72 hours. This delay cast further doubt on the prosecution's case. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and procedural lapses. The burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution, and any doubt benefits the accused. ----Citations/Precedents: 2022 SCR 334 2021 SCR 516 2018 YLR 2358 2016 MLD 920 2009 P.Cr.LJ 1334 Muhammad Waseem Mughal Vs. The State (PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 11) Khursheed Hussain Shah vs. State and another (2022 SCR 334) 2021 YLR 662 (Peshawar High Court) Tariq Parvez Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Abdul Majeed vs. State (2023 PCr.LJ 331) Lal Bux vs. State (2023 YLR 321) Amer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 386) Asmattullah Pathan vs. State (2023 P.Cr.LJ 48) Mst. Haseena Baloch vs. The State (2018 YLR 32) Mir Muhammad vs. State (2008 MLD 1333) Akhtar Ali vs. State (2009 P.Cr.LJ 50) 2013 YLR 982 2014 P.Cr.LJ 611 2011 P.Cr.LJ 1046 The appeal was accepted, and the judgment of the Additional Session Judge, Mirpur, was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges due to the benefit of the doubt.

Summary: Bail denied----Background: The petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 354/2023, registered at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala, for offenses under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974, and sections 34/109 PPC. The case arose from a raid conducted by the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) on a house in Gujranwala, where the petitioner was allegedly found with counterfeit travel documents and equipment used for human trafficking. ----Issues: 1- Whether the FIA conducted the raid lawfully, without a search and seizure warrant. 2- Whether the involvement of local inhabitants was necessary during the raid. 3- Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated and the actual culprits were released. 4- Whether the offenses under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance and section 6 of the Passport Act were applicable to the facts of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Lawfulness of the Raid: The court acknowledged that the raid was conducted based on urgent source information at 3:30 a.m. when no court was available to issue a search warrant. The urgency of the situation justified the procedural irregularities or illegalities in the process. The court held that unless the petitioner could demonstrate during the trial that the actions caused him serious prejudice, the raid would not be invalidated. ---Involvement of Local Inhabitants: The petitioner argued that the FIA violated section 103 Cr.P.C. by not involving local inhabitants in the raid. The court noted that police witnesses are as credible as any other witness unless they have animosity towards the accused. The petitioner was advised to show cause at the trial why the proceedings could not be relied upon. ---False Implication: The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he was not arrested at the scene and was made a scapegoat. The prosecution maintained that the petitioner was caught red-handed. The court found that prima facie, the evidence satisfied the ingredients of the offenses under the Emigration Ordinance and the Passport Act. ---Applicability of Offenses: The court determined that section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, which falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., was applicable given the nature of the crime. Additionally, the petitioner had a previous conviction under the same section, indicating a repeat offense. The court dismissed the bail application, citing that the petitioner failed to make a case for bail and the offenses charged were substantiated by the evidence presented. The petitioner was remanded to custody pending trial. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azam v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 67) Muhammad Hanif v. The State (2003 SCMR 1237) Riaz Ahmad alias Raju v. The State (2004 SCMR 988) Naseer Ahmad v. The State (2004 SCMR 1361) Zafar v. The State (2008 SCMR 1254) Najib Rahim v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2017 Sindh 53) Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 119) Fida Jan v. The State (2001 SCMR 36) State through A.-G, Sindh, Karachi v. Hemjoo (2003 SCMR 881) Arshad Mahmood v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 376) Syed Zulfiqar Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1450)

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- Ss. 353, 224, 186, 225, 427, 147, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-H(ii)---Obstruction of public servants, rioting, causing hurt, mischief---Benefit of doubt---Appellants were convicted under multiple sections of the P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment and fines on allegations of resisting police, aiding the escape of an accused, and attacking law enforcement officers during an attempted arrest---Prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that the appellants actively participated in the alleged offenses---Material contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the alleged attack on police officers and the nature of injuries sustained---Absence of specific attribution of injuries or damage to any appellant further weakened the case---Court extended benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside their convictions---Reliance placed on Shamoon alias Shamma v. The State (1995 SCMR 1377) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ---- S. 7---Application of ATA provisions---Scope and intent---Prosecution alleged that the act of attacking police officers created terror in society, thereby falling under the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Court held that for an act to constitute terrorism under ATA, there must be clear intent, purpose, and design to create fear or panic in the public or destabilize the state---No evidence was presented to show that the accused had any premeditated intent to spread terror or that their actions had such an effect---Relying on Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), Court concluded that fear or insecurity as a mere byproduct of an alleged offense does not bring a case within the ambit of ATA, 1997---Conviction under ATA set aside. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 103---Recovery and search---Non-compliance with mandatory provisions---Prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses with the recovery of weapons and other material evidence, despite the presence of numerous local residents near the crime scene---Only police officials acted as witnesses in all recovery proceedings, raising concerns about transparency and credibility---Court held that mandatory compliance with S. 103, Cr.P.C., is essential to ensure fairness and prevent false implication---Prosecution's failure to comply with this requirement cast further doubt on its case---Reliance placed on The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408) and Yameen Kumhar v. The State (PLD 1990 Karachi 275). (d) Criminal trial--- ---- Material contradictions in prosecution evidence---Effect---Complainant stated that the accused fired upon the police, injuring an officer, while the injured officer himself contradicted this by stating that he was hit by a stone---Medical evidence suggested that the injury could have been caused by falling or an accidental impact rather than a direct attack---Further contradictions were found regarding damage to police vehicles, as some witnesses claimed glass was broken while others did not mention it---Court held that such contradictions created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version of events, warranting acquittal of the accused---Reliance placed on Muhammad Akram v. The State (YLR 2020 Note 94). (e) Benefit of doubt--- ---- Rule of prudence---Scope---Court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the benefit must be given to the accused as a matter of right, not grace---Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so necessitates acquittal---Where evidence is unreliable, contradictory, or lacking essential elements, conviction cannot be sustained---Reliance placed on Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134) and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25). ----Disposition: Appeals allowed---Convictions and sentences set aside---Appellants acquitted of all charges under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Appellants ordered to be released unless required in another case. ----Cited Cases: Shamoon alias Shamma v. The State (1995 SCMR 1377) Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408) Yameen Kumhar v. The State (PLD 1990 Karachi 275) Muhammad Akram v. The State (YLR 2020 Note 94) Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25)

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997): ---- S. 7(1)(h) --- Terrorism charges --- Essential ingredients --- Accused convicted under multiple offenses including S. 7(1)(h) of ATA, 1997 for allegedly detaining an individual unlawfully and later resorting to firing in a public place, causing fear and panic --- Evidence revealed that accused fled upon arrival of the Judicial Magistrate, indicating lack of prior knowledge or intent to instill terror --- No premeditation or specific mens rea to commit an act of terrorism proved --- Mere fear or panic as an unintended consequence of an action does not constitute terrorism unless the act itself was designed to create such fear --- Conviction under S. 7(1)(h), ATA, 1997 was not sustainable and was set aside. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 353, 504, 365, 395, 452, 506(2), 220, 342 --- Criminal charges --- Conviction and sentencing --- Material contradictions in prosecution evidence --- Witnesses contradicted each other on key points regarding the location of detention, manner of abduction, and treatment of the alleged victim --- No independent corroboration provided for key allegations, including kidnapping, illegal confinement, and use of force --- Absence of medical evidence despite claims of maltreatment and violence further weakened prosecution’s case --- Non-examination of material witnesses, including hospital staff and shopkeepers near the police station, created doubts in the prosecution version --- Convictions under various sections of the PPC found unsustainable and set aside. (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 103 --- Search and recovery --- Violation of mandatory procedural requirements --- Accused allegedly arrested near a public place, yet no independent witnesses from the locality were included in the arrest memo --- Prosecution failed to explain non-compliance with S. 103, Cr.P.C. which mandates the presence of private witnesses for credibility of recovery proceedings --- Such non-compliance cast serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution case. (d) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872): ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) --- Adverse inference due to non-examination of material witnesses --- Investigation officer failed to record statements of two servants allegedly guarding the detained individual, the hospital staff, and shopkeepers near the police station --- Non-production of independent and material witnesses suggested that their testimonies, if recorded, would not have supported the prosecution’s case --- Inference drawn against prosecution under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984. (e) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 342 --- Defense plea --- Accused claimed false implication due to personal enmities with a local influential person and the Judicial Magistrate --- Prosecution failed to disprove the defense version convincingly --- Accused’s explanation created sufficient doubt regarding the motive behind his prosecution. (f) Benefit of Doubt: ---- Standard of proof in criminal trials --- Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt --- Contradictions in witness statements, absence of independent testimony, non-existence of crucial medical evidence, and delay in forensic examination of recovered weapon rendered the case doubtful --- Accused was entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not as a concession. -----Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Wazir Mohammad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1134 • Bashir Ahmed alias Manu v. The State 1996 SCMR 308 • Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 61 • State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 -----Disposition: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted.

Summary: Sentence reduction---(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(c) & S. 25; Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 103 Conviction for transportation of narcotics---Safe custody and corroboration---Accused was arrested during a vehicle check, and a substantial quantity of charas (574 kilograms) and opium (7 kilograms) was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by him---Accused argued false implication, procedural lapses, and contradictions in prosecution evidence---Held, Section 103 Cr.P.C. is excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in narcotics cases; thus, absence of private witnesses does not vitiate proceedings---Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and recovery witnesses, were deemed credible despite being police officials---No enmity or ulterior motive was alleged against them---Chain of custody of the narcotics from recovery to chemical analysis was proven through evidence of the Malkhana Incharge and corroborated by forensic reports confirming the narcotics were "Hashish Pukhta" and opium. -----Cited Cases: Zafar v. The State Nadir Khan v. The State Kashif Amir v. State (b) Sentencing: ----Capital punishment and its modification; Subsequent legislative amendments Death penalty awarded to the accused was modified to life imprisonment---Prosecution failed to establish prior involvement of the accused in similar offences, deeming him a first-time offender---Legislative amendments to the Narcotic Substances Act in 2022 and 2023 omitted the death penalty for offences under S. 9(c), leaving life imprisonment as the maximum sentence---Held, the sentence modification aligns with legal principles distinguishing first offenders and subsequent legislative changes. ----Cited Cases: Rehmat Shah Afridi’s case Muhammad Tariq v. The State (c) Criminal Procedure: ----Burden of proof on prosecution; Minor contradictions in witness testimonies Prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt---Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not affect the core evidence establishing guilt---Defence of false implication was unsupported by evidence or logical reasoning---Court reiterated that prosecution witnesses, even if police officials, are competent and credible absent allegations of enmity or bias. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed with modification---Death sentence converted to life imprisonment; fine of one million rupees and imprisonment in default upheld; benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. granted. Murder Reference No. 14 of 2022 answered in negative, declining confirmation of the death sentence.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 342, 417 & 103 Acquittal Appeal—Principles governing interference with acquittal—Standard of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Benefit of doubt—Role of accused—Mere presence insufficient for conviction—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent (Babal son of Abdul Lateef) in a case registered under Sections 302, 396, and 397, PPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of five hours without plausible explanation, raising doubts about the prosecution's version. Despite the complainant and eyewitnesses claiming to have identified the accused at the scene and allegedly chasing them to their residence, no immediate report was made to the police. The prosecution failed to assign any specific role to the respondent during the incident, and no evidence established his active participation. It is a settled principle of law that mere presence at the scene of an incident without an overt act is insufficient to warrant conviction. Furthermore, any doubt in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused. The Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent, and appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittal unless a gross misreading of evidence is evident, which was not the case here. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Mst. Jallan v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 2003 SC 644) Muhammad Zafar and another v. Rustam Ali and others (2014 SCMR 1639) Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others (2017 SCMR 1710) Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State (1992 SCMR 498) The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1995 SCMR 635) Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal upheld.

Summary: Background: The convicted-appellant, Khizar Farooq, challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehnsa, dated 29.04.2019, which sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000, with an additional 10 days of imprisonment in case of default. The conviction was based on an FIR No.180/2017, registered under Sections 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA) and 14 AM at Police Station Sehnsa. The appellant was found with 110 grams of contraband (chars) in his possession, leading to his conviction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Head Constable was authorized to investigate and confiscate the contraband under the CNSA. 2- Whether the absence of independent witnesses and reliance solely on police testimony impacted the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the delay in sending samples for chemical analysis cast doubt on the prosecution's case. 4- Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and followed the relevant legal provisions. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Authority of Head Constable: The court noted that under Section 21 of the CNSA, an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector is authorized to carry out investigations. The Head Constable lacked the authority to conduct the investigation and confiscation, rendering the actions questionable. --Absence of Independent Witnesses: The court observed that no private witnesses were included in the case despite the arrest taking place in a public area. This omission violated Section 103 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the inclusion of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings, casting doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution’s story. --Delay in Sending Samples: The contraband samples were sent for chemical analysis almost three months after confiscation, violating the requirement of sending samples within 72 hours as per Rule 4(2) of the CNSA Rules, 2001. This significant delay raised doubts about the integrity of the samples and the prosecution’s case. --Appreciation of Evidence: The trial court failed to properly analyze the evidence and did not consider the relevant legal provisions, leading to an erroneous judgment. The contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the lack of solid evidence weakened the prosecution’s case. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Parvez Vs. The State [1995 SCMR 1345]: Established that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case must benefit the accused. Muhammad Waseem Mughal Vs. The State [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 11]: Addressed the mandatory requirement of timely sending samples for chemical analysis. Rekibuddin Ahmed v. State [2022 Cr.L.J 4301]: Highlighted the necessity of ensuring the integrity of contraband samples during investigation. Abdul Majeed vs. State [2023 PCr.LJ 331] and Lal Bux vs. State [2023 YLR 321]: Reinforced the principle that any doubt in the prosecution’s case should benefit the accused. Outcome: The appeal was accepted, and the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2019 was set aside. The convict-appellant was acquitted of all charges due to the numerous doubts and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)----Qatl-i-Amd----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal of accused----Appreciation of evidence The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced to death for committing Qatl-i-Amd. Upon reappraisal of evidence, the court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The eyewitnesses were categorized as chance witnesses and failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene. The inconsistencies in their statements regarding the events and physical evidence, including contradictions in injury descriptions and the absence of corroborative forensic proof, cast serious doubts on their credibility. The prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of the weapon conclusively, as the empty shells and weapon were not sent for forensic examination promptly. Furthermore, the medical evidence, including the timing of rigor mortis and post-mortem findings, contradicted the prosecution's timeline of events. The prosecution's failure to produce credible motive evidence further weakened their case. The principle of benefit of the doubt was applied, as a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The accused was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt and ordered to be released if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 137) Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622) Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State (2017 SCMR 724) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736) Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2012 SCMR 419) Muhammad Arif v. The State (2019 SCMR 631) Amin Ali and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 103----Recovery of weapon----Non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions----Evidentiary value The recovery of the pistol from the appellant was disregarded due to the prosecution's failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery, violating Section 103, Cr.P.C. Additionally, the delay in sending the recovered weapon and empty shells for forensic analysis rendered the forensic evidence unreliable. Disposition: Recovery evidence discarded due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and delayed forensic examination. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) Muhammad Amin v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 2057) (c) Criminal Law----Motive----Failure to prove motive----Effect on prosecution case The prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive convincingly. No corroborative evidence was presented, and contradictions in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's narrative regarding the motive. A tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. Disposition: Motive evidence was disregarded due to contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. Cited Cases: Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021) (d) Administration of Justice ----Acquittal of co-accused----Double presumption of innocence----Principles of interference by higher courts The trial court's acquittal of co-accused was upheld. Courts should be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the order is patently illegal, shocking, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Disposition: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. Cited Cases: Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) Muhammad Inayat v. The State (1998 SCMR 1854) Mst. Sughran Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervaiz and others (2015 SCMR 1142) (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 374----Murder Reference----Non-confirmation of death sentence The murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative due to material contradictions, unreliable ocular evidence, flawed forensic analysis, and procedural irregularities. Disposition: Death sentence not confirmed. Final Outcome: Appeal allowed, sentence set aside, appellant acquitted, and petition for special leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: S. 9(D), 11-C, 27,28 KP CNSA, 2019S.103 CrPC(i) Provision of section 27 KP CNSA, 2019 are directory and not mandatory.(ii) Term Dwelling house defined and explained.