Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 311 & 302/34-Tazir after waiver or compounding of right of Qisas in Qatl-i-Amd-Case against accused under S.302/34, P.P.C. stood proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence on the record-Trial Court by not acquitting the accused pursuant to the compromise effected between the only legal heir (father) of the deceased and the accused had committed no irregularity or illegality and had rightly exercised its discretion in the circumstances of the case in convicting and sentencing the accused under S.311, P.P.C.-Conviction and sentence of accsued were upheld accordingly. Usman and another v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1960 distinguished. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 309-Compromise-Acquittal of accused-Once a compromise is allowed, Court has no other option but to acquit the accused. m n Usman and another v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ1960 ref.

Summary: Bail denied ---- In order to get a right of bail under the third proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, an accused person has not only to prove that his trial could not be concluded within the statutory period but he has also to prove that the delay in the conclusion of the trial is neither attributable to him nor to any person acting on his behalf besides he has also to prove that his case is not hit by the conditions precedent for attracting the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, the third and fourth provisos to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C could not co-exist. If the fourth proviso does attract to the case of an accused person, then he will not be entitled for the benefit of the third proviso. In order to determine the applicability or otherwise of the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C to the case of an accused person, the Court has to see that as to whether firstly that if he is a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; secondly that if he, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal; and thirdlythat if he has been an accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 3. In forming an opinion by the Court of law that as to whether an accused person is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, it amongst the other factors, could consider the nature of offence, the role attributed to the accused, the manner in which the offence was committed and the conduct of the accused. 4. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, any person is neither legally or religiously have a right to take the law into his own hands nor to take the life of anybody in the name of family honour.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 154, 342, 374 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 311, 338-C — Qatl-e-amd — Defective FIR — False implication — Benefit of doubt — Acquittal FIR was lodged belatedly via a written application (Exh.PA) after oral narration of the occurrence to a police official at the police station, which was not recorded contemporaneously. The Court held that the true “first information” under S.154, Cr.P.C., was the unrecorded verbal statement by the complainant to the Moharrar, rendering the written application inadmissible as FIR in stricto sensu. Lack of blood marks or dragging signs at the alleged outdoor scene contradicted the prosecution version. Ocular evidence was rendered doubtful due to the chance witness status of both prosecution eyewitnesses, who failed to offer credible reasons for their presence at the scene. Testimonies were held to be “suspect evidence,” warranting rejection without corroboration. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142 • Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 • Sarfaraz v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 (b) Qatl-e-amd — Recovery evidence — Weapon recovery — Tampering and delay — Forensic inconclusiveness — Effect Pistol and chhurri allegedly recovered on the appellant’s pointation were found unreliable. The pistol parcel reportedly included six live bullets, yet PFSA report failed to confirm receipt of the same, raising tampering concerns. The chhurri was recovered after 27 days; its forensic report was held inconsequential as human blood disintegrates within three weeks. Thus, recoveries were held uncorroborated and irrelevant for confirming the prosecution’s version. Cited Cases: • Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2016 SCMR 2138 (c) Evidence — Ocular account — Chance witnesses — Lack of proximity — Dishonest improvements — No corroboration Complainant and PW-2 were not residents of the area of occurrence and offered no plausible explanation for following the deceased. Their statements lacked corroboration, were riddled with improvements, and were not supported by independent or forensic evidence. No witness from the locality or the alleged house of the deceased’s maternal uncle was presented. In the absence of reliable and independent eyewitness account, the prosecution's version collapsed. (d) Criminal trial — Medical and motive evidence — Corroborative value — Cannot identify assailant — Motive inconsequential if ocular account fails Medical evidence merely confirmed the nature of injuries but could not identify the assailant. Motive alleged was based on marriage without family consent, which the Court held to be a double-edged sword—capable of both implicating and exonerating the accused. With the ocular account discredited, motive was declared inconsequential. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 • Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 486 (e) Criminal trial — Standard of proof — Single dent in prosecution case sufficient for acquittal — Legal principle affirmed The Court reaffirmed the principle that even a single material defect in the prosecution case is sufficient to acquit the accused. In the instant case, multiple material contradictions, gaps, and inconclusive forensic evidence created reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Case: • Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 Disposition: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted. Death sentence not confirmed; Murder Reference answered in negative. ---- "FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR."

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal: ----Ss. 302, 311, 201, 34, Cr.P.C. & S. 20 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 Acquittal of accused in honour killing case involving alleged viral video of deceased girls––State filed appeal against acquittal by trial court––Allegation that two girls were murdered by cousins after a video involving them and accused went viral on social media––Initial investigation claimed motive was based on honour––Mobile phone and video footage taken into possession but forensic reports failed to establish direct connection between recovered device and accused––Judicial Magistrate’s exhumation attempt obstructed by tribal elders and deceased families citing religious and cultural reasons––Confessional statement of main accused failed to constitute a true confession of murder––Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt––In an appeal against acquittal, presumption of innocence is doubled––Unless trial court’s judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or mechanical, findings are not to be lightly interfered with––Trial court rightly extended benefit of doubt and based findings on sound legal reasoning––Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 • Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another 29249-51 • The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others PLD 2011 SC 554 • Amin Khan v. Gul and others (citation not specified) "(Appeal against acquittal) (a) Appeal against acquittal--Ss.302, 311, 201/34 P.P.C read with Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016—Reappraisal of evidence—Respondents/accused were charged for committing murder of two girls on the pretext of honour and were buried without conducting autopsy on the dead bodies—The occurrence was unseen as the complainant S.H.O on receiving information about the murder of two ladies, rushed to the crime village where it was told to him that they were murdered by their cousin reportedly due to their objectionable video with accused Umer Ayaz, which had gone viral on social media. Although the mobile phone through which the objectionable video featuring two deceased women and the accused Umer Ayaz was allegedly taken into possession which was sent to the F.S.L, however, there was no report on file to confirm that the said mobile phone belonged to the accused. (b) Confessional statement—The confessional statement of accused Umer Ayaz, relied upon by the prosecution, did not constitute confessional statement as the same only acknowledged friendship of the accused with the deceased women, specially given that the accused had not been charged with the murder of the two women. (c) It is cardinal principal of law and natural justice that every person, accused of an offence, is to be considered innocent, unless and until proved guilty on the basis of legal and unimpeachable evidence. However, after facing full-fledged trial, if an accused of a crime is acquitted by the competent Court of law, then a presumption of his innocence gets doubled and very strong and exceptional circumstances are required to overturn the conviction judgment. (Appeal was dismissed in limine)."PECA

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(1), third & fourth provisos – Bail – Statutory Delay ––Bail in non-bailable offence––Delay in conclusion of trial––Scope and limitations under third and fourth provisos to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C––Petitioner accused of murdering his wife and concealing her body for nearly 18 days in a wooden box––Application for post-arrest bail filed on the ground of statutory delay––Held, third proviso to S. 497(1) Cr.P.C mandates release on bail where trial has not concluded within statutory time limits, provided the delay is not attributable to the accused––In present case, delay of more than two years established as not being attributable to petitioner––However, benefit of third proviso is subject to exclusionary conditions in fourth proviso––Court examined whether petitioner could be categorized as a “hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal”––Nature and gravity of offence, role of accused, and subsequent conduct relevant factors––Petitioner neither reported wife’s disappearance nor foul smell from decomposed body for 18 days––Admitted before I.O. to have murdered his wife on allegations of immoral character––Court held that such conduct reflects dangerous disposition and therefore falls within fourth proviso––Petitioner thus disentitled to benefit of third proviso despite statutory delay. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 120-B, 34 – Honour Killing – Legal Status ––Murder of wife allegedly on pretext of “honour”––Accused admitted to killing wife due to suspicion of character––Dead body concealed in wooden box––Held, no person can take law into their own hands under the guise of honour––Such killings are treated as qatl-i-amd simpliciter––Reliance placed on PLD 2001 SC 96 (Muhammad Akram v. The State) where Supreme Court held that honour killings are neither justified by law nor by religion and are violative of fundamental rights––Accused cannot escape criminal liability merely on basis of alleged moral lapses of victim––Bail rightly refused in light of gravity of offence and conduct of accused. Disposition: Bail application dismissed––Petitioner found ineligible for statutory bail under third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C due to bar of fourth proviso. ----Cited Case: • Muhammad Akram v. The State, PLD 2001 SC 96 "1. In order to get a right of bail under the third proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, an accused person has not only to prove that his trial could not be concluded within the statutory period but he has also to prove that the delay in the conclusion of the trial is neither attributable to him nor to any person acting on his behalf besides he has also to prove that his case is not hit by the conditions precedent for attracting the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, the third and fourth provisos to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C could not co-exist. If the fourth proviso does attract to the case of an accused person, then he will not be entitled for the benefit of the third proviso. In order to determine the applicability or otherwise of the fourth proviso to section 497 (1) Cr.P.C to the case of an accused person, the Court has to see that as to whether firstly that if he is a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; secondly that if he, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal; and thirdlythat if he has been an accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 3. In forming an opinion by the Court of law that as to whether an accused person is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, it amongst the other factors, could consider the nature of offence, the role attributed to the accused, the manner in which the offence was committed and the conduct of the accused. 4. Under the established criminal jurisprudence, any person is neither legally or religiously have a right to take the law into his own hands nor to take the life of anybody in the name of family honour."

Summary: Background: Bilqees Bibi, the petitioner, filed for post-arrest bail after being implicated in a murder case registered as FIR No. 1508 dated September 28, 2023, under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case revolves around a triple murder, where the complainant alleged that the petitioner's family was angry over a love marriage between the complainant's brother and Mst. Laiba Bibi, the petitioner's relative. On September 28, 2023, the complainant and her family were invited by the petitioner’s co-accused, Kaneez Bibi, to her house under the pretext of reconciling over the marriage. Once at the house, two armed co-accused, Usman and Arslan, allegedly shot and killed the complainant’s relatives, Naseem Akhtar, Zaigham Abbas, and Mst. Laiba Bibi. The petitioner was accused of raising a "lalkara" (commanding shout) to kill the victims. ---Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner’s involvement in the case, based solely on a joint "lalkara," is sufficient to deny bail. ---2) Whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to warrant continued detention, particularly given her lack of direct involvement in the murders. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. ---Reasoning: No Direct Role in the Murders: The petitioner was not directly involved in the killing of the victims. The only accusation against her was that she raised a joint "lalkara" encouraging the co-accused to kill the complainant party. The court found that such an accusation, without more substantial evidence, was insufficient to deny bail. ----Benefit of Doubt at Bail Stage: The court applied the principle of extending the benefit of doubt at the bail stage, as outlined in Resham Khan and another vs. The State (2021 SCMR 2011), ruling that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. ----Distinguishable Role: The petitioner was unarmed and did not directly participate in the shooting, which distinguishes her role from those who physically carried out the murders. The court noted that the allegation of merely raising a "lalkara" is easy to level but difficult to prove. ----Vicarious Liability: The issue of the petitioner’s vicarious liability (being held responsible for the acts of others) would be determined at trial, and bail cannot be withheld as punishment when the case against her calls for further inquiry. ----Heinousness of Offense Not Grounds for Denial of Bail: The court emphasized that the mere heinousness of the crime is not sufficient to deny bail when the petitioner’s entitlement to bail is otherwise established, as per Nasir Khan vs. Waseel Gul and another (PLJ 2009 SC 957) and Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914). ----Petitioner’s Age and Health: The petitioner is a 50-year-old woman with no direct involvement in the murders, and her continued detention served no further purpose as the investigation had concluded. ----Outcome: The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties. ----Citations/Precedents: Resham Khan and another vs. The State (2021 SCMR 2011) Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 738) Ali Raza vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1245) Nasir Khan vs. Waseel Gul (PLJ 2009 SC 957) Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914) Khair Muhammad vs. The State (2021 SCMR 130) Key Takeaway: The court ruled that the petitioner's mere alleged participation through raising a "lalkara" without direct involvement in the crime was insufficient to deny her bail. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt could be extended at the bail stage, and the case required further inquiry, particularly regarding her vicarious liability.

Summary: Bail denied --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Murder of sister on the pretext of honour (‘ghairat’)---Prohibitory clause---Accused/petitioner, after dismissal of post-arrest bail by Sessions Court, sought bail in a case registered under Ss. 302 & 311, PPC---Allegation was that accused, being real brother of deceased, made a straight fire shot causing her death on the spot on account of alleged dishonour---Occurrence claimed to have been witnessed by police officials during patrolling, who had no apparent animus against the accused---None of the family members, including parents of the deceased, became complainant---Accused remained fugitive for about five months and upon arrest got recovered the firearm, which along with crime empty was sent for forensic examination---Held, that at bail stage only tentative assessment of material is permissible---Ocular account by police witnesses, recovery of weapon, conduct of abscondence and forensic process prima facie connected the accused with the offence---Overwhelming material on record constituted reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause---No case of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. was made out---Post-arrest bail was rightly declined. (b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 299(ee), 302(c), 311---Offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour---Legal effect of amendments---Held, that by virtue of Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts, 2004 and 2016, murder committed in the name or on the pretext of honour stands excluded from clause (c) of S.302, PPC and is to be treated as murder committed with premeditation falling under clause (a) or (b)---Such offence has been categorized as ‘fasad-fil-arz’---Even if right of qisas is waived or offence is compounded by legal heirs, court may still award punishment, including imprisonment for life as ta’zir---Plea of compromise or forgiveness by parents of deceased did not entitle accused to bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 345(2-A) & (7)---Compounding of offence---Honour killing---Scope---Held, that offences committed in the name or on the pretext of honour may be waived or compounded only subject to conditions provided by law and read with S.311, PPC---No offence shall be waived or compounded except as provided by S.345, Cr.P.C. and S.311, PPC---Therefore, compromise by legal heirs was of no legal consequence for grant of bail in honour killing case. (d) Criminal trial---Further inquiry---Principles---Held, that doctrine of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. requires tentative assessment creating reasonable doubt regarding involvement of accused---Mere possibility of conflict between ocular and medical evidence or need for deeper appreciation of evidence does not attract further inquiry at bail stage---Conflict alleged by accused regarding nature of firearm injury required deeper examination, which was not permissible at bail stage---Where reasonable grounds exist, benefit of further inquiry cannot be extended. (e) Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 8 & 9---Right to life---Honour killing---Held, that killing in the name of honour is unconstitutional, illegal and violative of fundamental right to life---Neither law nor religion permits taking law into one’s own hands---Plea of ‘ghairat’ cannot be treated as mitigating circumstance. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State PLD 2001 SC 96 • Umer Din v. The State and others 2017 YLR Note 378 (Lahore) • Khadim Hussain and another v. The State PLD 2012 Balochistan 179 • Muhammad Qasim v. The State PLD 2018 SC 840 • Mumtaz v. The State 2012 SCMR 556 • Ata-ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1210 • Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State and others 2002 SCMR 1886 Disposition: Post-arrest bail petition dismissed; accused held not entitled to bail as reasonable grounds existed for believing his involvement in a non-bailable offence under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously, preferably within four months. Is this conversation helpful so far?

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant challenged the judgment dated 05.12.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, in Sessions Case No.144/2022. The case, originating from FIR No.05/2022, involved charges under Sections 302, 201, 311, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), registered at Police Station Gublo Katcho. The appellant was convicted under Section 201(1) PPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite significant contradictions and lack of evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of five witnesses, including police officials. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, along with others, strangulated Mst. Azmat Khatoon to death and disposed of her body in the Indus River. The defense highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, the absence of eyewitnesses, and the lack of any incriminating articles recovered from the appellant. The defense argued that the case was based on fabricated charges of honor killing. The High Court found several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case: The incident was not witnessed by the complainant or any other witnesses. None of the deceased's family members or close associates filed the complaint. There was no recovery of the deceased's body or the alleged motorbike loader used in the crime. The investigation officer failed to gather statements from neighbors or co-villagers who could corroborate the prosecution's story. The recovery of the deceased's Dupatta was not subjected to DNA testing, nor was this piece of evidence confronted with the appellant during his statement. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and released. ----Citations/Precedents: Ayub Masih v. State (PLD 2002 SC 1048): Emphasized the principle that the judicial system should err on the side of acquitting a guilty person rather than convicting an innocent one. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC-600): Reiterated the principle of benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345): Established that even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal.