Summary: (a) Criminal Trial—Benefit of doubt—Delay in FIR and recording of witness statements—Effect— Conviction and death sentences of five appellants under S.302(b), P.P.C. were set aside due to material discrepancies and procedural irregularities. FIR, although said to be promptly lodged, showed unexplained delay of 1 hour 40 minutes despite proximity of police station. Star prosecution witnesses (including injured witness) had their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. after an unjustified delay of 8–10 days. Such unexplained delay rendered their testimony unreliable. Held, evidence of a witness not recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. during investigation cannot be safely relied upon. Delay in recording material statements raises serious doubt about prosecution’s credibility. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860—S. 149—Common object of unlawful assembly—Lack of evidence— No specific role of firing or organized assault was assigned to certain appellants (Taimoor and Sikandar). Trial Court’s conviction under S.149, P.P.C. was held untenable as prosecution failed to prove existence of a shared common object or pre-concert—No direct or circumstantial evidence established prior intention or meeting of minds. Held, constructive liability under S.149, P.P.C. cannot arise without clear proof of common object or collective intent to commit murder. (c) Criminal Procedure—Withholding of material evidence—Presumption under Article 129(g), QSO— Prosecution failed to produce key evidence including fard-e-bayan, recovery memos of bloodstained earth and weapon empty shells. Important witnesses from earlier trial phase were not produced and no valid justification (e.g., medical records) was submitted to explain their absence. Held, non-production of best available evidence gives rise to presumption that it would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. Benefit of doubt must go to accused. (d) Criminal Law—Contradictions in prosecution evidence—Effect— Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 contradicted the medical and site evidence. Medical certificates showed the complainant had identified injured at hospital, contrary to claims that he remained home. Site plan showed occurrence 60–70 paces away from residence, not in front of the house as alleged. Held, material contradictions in location and identification of injured weaken the prosecution case—Doubt created thereby entitles accused to acquittal as of right, not concession. Disposition: Appeals Allowed—Convictions and death sentences set aside—All appellants acquitted of charges under Ss. 302(b), 324, 149, P.P.C.—Murder Reference No. 04 of 2024 answered in the negative—Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Cited Authorities / Precedents: Muhammad Khan v. Moula Bakhsh, 1998 SCMR 570 Muhammad Shah v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1009 Tariq Pervez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345 Abdul Jabbar v. The State, 2019 SCMR 129 Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1507 Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem, 2012 CLD 6 PLD 1995 PCr.LJ 248, 1996 MLD 1311

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pattikah/Naseerabad dated 10.10.2023, which denied his application for bail after arrest. The appellant was arrested under FIR No. 03/2023 for an offence under section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 2001, following the recovery of 1050 grams of contraband (charas) from his possession on 05.01.2023. ----Issues: 1- Whether the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence warrant the appellant's release on bail. 2- Whether the failure to exhibit the Chemical Examiner's report in evidence entitles the appellant to bail. 3- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail given the stage of the trial and the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Discrepancies in Prosecution's Evidence: The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution witness, Muhammad Manzoor, recorded statements contradictory to his earlier statement under section 161 Cr.PC., making it a case of further inquiry. The court held that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage and that minor discrepancies do not falsify the prosecution's version. Therefore, this argument was rejected. --Chemical Examiner's Report: The appellant's counsel contended that the non-exhibition of the Chemical Examiner's report in evidence entitled the appellant to bail. The court noted that two official prosecution witnesses had yet to be recorded, allowing the prosecution the opportunity to tender the report. The effect of non-exhibition would be considered at the final decision of the case. The argument was thus dismissed. --Stage of Trial: The court observed that the trial was near conclusion, with only two prosecution witnesses' statements pending. Superior courts have held that it is not appropriate to release an accused on bail when the trial is at an advanced stage. Therefore, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a month and denied the bail application. ----Citations/Precedents: 2018 PCr.LJ 270: Deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage. 2004 PCr.LJ 935: Bail decisions should not involve deeper appreciation of evidence. 2010 MLD 399: Judicial discretion must be exercised with care and caution. 2020 YLR 2121: Previous denial of bail without fresh grounds. 2020 MLD 1877: Accused should wait for trial conclusion if it is at an advanced stage.

Summary: Bail denied ---- The petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 775/2022, dated 04.11.2022, registered under Sections 376(ii) and 293 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Mustafa Abad, District Kasur. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, alleging that petitioner, along with his co-accused , committed rape with the complainant’s 12-year-old daughter. Additionally, the accused made a video of the assault, used it to blackmail the victim, and extorted money and jewelry from her. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether there were reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offenses. ------ 2) Whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, considering the nature of the offense and the prohibition under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Reasonable Grounds for Connection with the Offense: The court found that the victim, Sania Jamil, had supported the prosecution’s case by clearly identifying the petitioner in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. She alleged that both Shahbaz and Naveed committed the offense. Additionally, the USB containing the video of the crime was recovered during the investigation, corroborating the victim's account. The defense failed to provide any reason for the victim or her family to falsely implicate the petitioner in such a serious offense. ------ Prohibition under Section 497 Cr.P.C.: The court noted that rape, particularly of a minor, falls under the prohibition contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C., which restricts the granting of bail for offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court found no such exceptional circumstances in this case. The serious nature of the offense and its moral implications necessitated strict judicial action. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any leniency. ------ Outcome: The petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed. The court ruled that there were sufficient grounds to connect the petitioner to the commission of the offense, and the gravity of the crime did not warrant any leniency. The observations made by the court were deemed tentative, strictly for the disposal of the bail petition. ------ Citations/Precedents: Section 376(ii) PPC: Punishment for rape of a minor. Section 293 PPC: Punishment for circulating obscene material. Section 497 Cr.P.C.: Prohibition on granting bail in cases where the offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Summary: ''If the conditions for recording dying declaration as required under Article 46(1) of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Rule 25.21 of Chapter XXV of Police Rules, 1934 are not adhered to, then maximum it can be treated as a statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and conviction of an accused cannot be based upon on the said dying declaration.'' --- Issue:Whether the prosecution proved its case against Ghulam Abbas beyond a reasonable doubt for the murder of three individuals.Judgment:The Lahore High Court found numerous issues with the prosecution's case, including doubtful presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and lack of corroborative evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed Ghulam Abbas's appeal, setting aside his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of the charges. The Murder Reference was answered in negative, not confirming the death sentence, and the Criminal Revision for enhanced compensation was dismissed as infructuous.Rationale:Eyewitness Credibility: The court doubted the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, considering their arrival from a distant location coinciding precisely with the shooting.---Medical Evidence: Discrepancies between the eyewitness accounts and medical reports cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events.---Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The court found the recovery of the weapon and the dying declaration of Muhammad Asif legally insufficient to support the eyewitness testimony.Investigative and Procedural Flaws: The court noted procedural lapses in recording the dying declaration and the recovery of the weapon, which undermined the prosecution's case.---Citations: Precedents:MISRI v. STATE through Advocate General (1999 P.Cr.L.J 116): This judgment from the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir was cited to support the view that a conviction can be based on a dying declaration alone, provided certain conditions are met to ensure its reliability and trustworthiness.--- Mst. ZAHIDA BIBI v. THE STATE (PLD 2006 SC 255): The Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment was referenced regarding the requirements for recording a dying declaration, particularly the presence of a doctor or hospital staff during the recording to ensure its authenticity.--- MHAMMAD SALEEM v. SHABBIR AHMED and others (2016 SCMR 1605): This precedent was used to clarify that medical evidence primarily serves to confirm the nature and extent of injuries and does not necessarily corroborate the ocular account of an incident.

Summary: Article 13 and 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Sections 500/505/120-B/124A, PPC, 7 ATA.ii) Quashment of second FIR of the same incident registered in another district on video of the same incident gone viral on Social Media.iii) After registration of one FIR every second/other version of the same incident shall be considered as a statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.iii) Doctrine of "Double Jeopardy". No one should be punished twice for the same offence. ---- The court, referring to relevant legal provisions and precedents, held that once an FIR is registered for a cognizable offense, it is treated as a "case." Any subsequent versions or circumstances related to the same incident should be investigated under the same case without the need for separate FIRs. The court cited Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and police rules to support this position.The court emphasized that allowing multiple FIRs for the same incident could lead to abuse of the legal process and violate the principle of double jeopardy. It relied on judgments from both Pakistani and Indian courts, such as "Mst. Sughran Bibi vs the State" and "Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India," to establish the legal principles governing the prohibition of multiple prosecutions for the same offense. ---- The court allowed the petitioner's petitions, quashing the multiple FIRs filed against Muhammad Azam Khan Swati. The court directed the petitioner's release in connection with the questioned FIRs. The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting individuals from double prosecution and ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 342, 382-B, 161, and 544-A---Conviction for murder and possession of illegal arms---Prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt---Benefit of doubt---Acquittal. Appellant, a juvenile, was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C., and section 15 of the KP Arms Act, 2013, for the murder of a minor boy and illegal possession of arms. The complainant’s testimony contained material contradictions and dishonest improvements, such as discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence and the sequence of events. The site of the crime, reported as a public area, was contradicted by evidence indicating it occurred inside the appellant's house. Testimonies of the complainant and eyewitnesses were deemed unreliable due to deliberate improvements. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon and empties lacked credibility as it was conducted without independent witnesses and after significant delay, diminishing the evidentiary value of the forensic report. In light of these inconsistencies and the absence of credible evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal was applied. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. -----Cited Cases: Amir Zaman v. Mahboob 1985 SCMR 685 Akhtar Ali's case 2008 SCMR 6 Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah v. The State 2009 SCMR 639 Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 129---Presumption of facts---Recovery evidence lacking corroboration. Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, courts may presume facts based on the natural course of events; however, such presumptions require corroboration. In the present case, the recovery of the weapon and empties from the appellant's house lacked independent witnesses and credible evidence to establish exclusive possession. Delayed submission of recovered empties and weapon for forensic analysis further weakened the prosecution's case. The presumption under Article 129 could not be applied in the absence of reliable evidence, leading to the appellant's acquittal. (c) Juvenile offender--- ----Sentencing---Factors affecting credibility of prosecution witnesses in cases involving minors. The appellant, being a juvenile, was convicted by the trial court without considering material contradictions in the prosecution's case, including conflicting accounts of the place of occurrence and absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. The Supreme Court's principle of extending the benefit of doubt, particularly in cases involving juveniles, was upheld. Conviction and sentence were set aside due to a failure to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases. -----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Convictions under sections 302(b), P.P.C., and 15 KP Arms Act, 2013, were set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not involved in any other case.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Arts. 140, 150 & 137—Hostile Witness—Cross-Examination of Own Witness—Contradiction with Previous Statement Under Section 161, Cr.P.C.—Scope—The prosecution sought to declare a prosecution witness (PW-2) hostile after he provided a version contrary to his earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.—Held, under Article 140 of QSO, 1984, a witness can be cross-examined on their previous statement to highlight contradictions, but the witness must be confronted with specific portions of their statement—Under Article 150, the Court may permit the party calling a witness to cross-examine them if their testimony conflicts with their earlier statement—The Trial Court erred in refusing to declare PW-2 hostile merely because his Section 161 statement lacked signatures or thumb impressions—The absence of a signature does not invalidate the statement or preclude the witness from being declared hostile if they contradict their prior version. Cited Cases: • The State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554) • Muhammad Boota v. The State (1984 SCMR 560) • Dost Muhammad v. Malik Shah Muhammad (2023 PCr.LJ 326) • Muhammad Sarfaraz v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 386) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) ----Ss. 161 & 162—Statements Made to Police—Use in Evidence—Hostile Witness—Contradiction of Statements—Under Section 162 Cr.P.C., a statement recorded by police during an investigation cannot be signed by the witness, nor can it be used as substantive evidence—However, such a statement can be used to contradict the witness if their attention is specifically drawn to the contradictions during cross-examination as per Article 140 of QSO, 1984—The Trial Court incorrectly ruled that a witness cannot be declared hostile based on an unsigned statement recorded under Section 161—The provision does not require signatures for the statement to be used for contradiction. (c) Administration of Justice ----Judicial Discretion—Hostile Witness—Standard for Declaring Witness Hostile—The Court must exercise its discretion judiciously while declaring a witness hostile—If a witness disowns or contradicts their previous statement, the prosecution must be allowed to cross-examine their witness—The purpose is to ensure that truth is uncovered, and contradictions are properly addressed during the trial—The Trial Court’s refusal to declare PW-2 hostile without considering the substantive contradiction in testimony amounted to a miscarriage of justice. (d) Evidence Law—Cross-Examination ----Purpose of Cross-Examination—Contradicting Previous Statements—A witness whose previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., contradicts their testimony in court can be cross-examined under Article 140 and 150 of QSO, 1984—The cross-examination must focus on specific contradictions in the earlier statement—The objective is not to corroborate but to highlight inconsistencies that may affect the credibility of the witness. Disposition: Revision petition allowed—Impugned order dated 26.07.2023 set aside—Trial Court directed to reconsider the testimony of Samiullah (PW-2) and allow the prosecution to declare him as a hostile witness based on the contradictions observed—Copy of the judgment directed to be circulated among Judicial Magistrates, Additional Sessions Judges, and Sessions Judges of the province for compliance and adherence.

Summary: Background: A case involving the offences under sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the APC was registered on 10.08.2022. According to the complainant, an assault occurred at the home of the victim, where the accused allegedly inflicted severe injuries using blunt objects and sticks. The motive was believed to be a familial disagreement. After the registration of the case, the accused sought bail. The District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction granted bail to one of the accused. The remaining accused filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which granted bail to some of the accused while dismissing the petition for one accused. -----Issues: 1- Whether the accused, who was denied bail by the High Court, should be granted bail. 2- Whether the bail granted to other accused by the High Court should be cancelled. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case, based on the statements of two eye witnesses, did not clearly support the role attributed to the accused who was denied bail. The discrepancies between the FIR, statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., and court testimonies necessitated further inquiry. The court ruled that since the matter required further investigation, the accused should be granted bail. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of one million rupees and two sureties of the like amount. -----Cancellation of Bail for Other Accused: The Supreme Court found no specific role attributed to one of the accused, who was not named in the FIR but was arrested on allegations of abetment. Another accused had a similar role to an already bailed accused. The court determined that there was no illegality in the High Court’s decision to grant bail to these accused, and thus, dismissed the revision petition for cancellation of bail. ----Citations/Precedents: The case reported as 2017 YLR 1238 was referenced by the counsel for the complainant.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): ----S. 161, 265-C & 172—Right to Fair Trial—Disclosure of Witness Statements—Accused’s Access to Investigation Records—Scope and Limitations. The petitioners, accused of murder, sought copies of witness statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., containing signatures and thumb impressions, during cross-examination of the Investigation Officer. Both the trial court and the High Court denied their request, arguing that such records were not part of the official case file and were privileged under Section 172, Cr.P.C.. The Supreme Court of AJ&K held: Right to Fair Trial: Under Article 19 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, every accused is entitled to a fair trial and due process, which includes access to material relied upon by the prosecution. Scope of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C.: The provision mandates the supply of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., including witness statements, FIR, and inspection notes, to ensure transparency and enable the accused to prepare their defense effectively. Privilege under Section 172, Cr.P.C.: While case diaries maintained under Section 172 are privileged, statements recorded under Section 161 do not enjoy this privilege even if included in case diaries. They remain public documents under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Access to Investigation Records: If the prosecution relies on any recorded witness statement, whether formally included in the charge sheet or not, the accused has the right to access it unless it falls under the exception of public interest as outlined in Section 265-C, Proviso. Purpose of Disclosure: Ensuring access to witness statements supports the principles of natural justice, prevents prejudice to the accused, and reinforces transparency in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that denying such access infringes on the constitutional right to a fair trial. Disposition: Revision petition allowed; trial court directed to provide copies of the requested statements containing signatures and thumb impressions. ----Cited Law: Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 161, 265-C & 172 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Article 49 AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, Article 19 ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Riaz v. The State (PLD 2003 Lahore 290) Muhammad Tahir v. The State

Summary: 1. Abandoning of a witness mentioned in the calendar of witnesses is, nodoubt, the choice of prosecution but the reason for non-inclusion of awitness duly named in the FIR and associated with the process ofinvestigation should have been explained by prosecution in plausibleterms.2. A fact not disclosed by a witness in his statement u/s 161/164, Cr.P.C orin FIR, if he is complainant, but introduces the same voluntarily for thefirst time during his cross-examination, tantamount to dishonestimprovement on his part if same has probative value, hence, such portionof the statement of a witness can safely be kept out of consideration.3. Status of a witness as mentioned in the FIR cannot be changedafterwards for example if prosecution shows a witness in FIR as lastseen evidence, then his testimony is required to be considered in thesame line and not otherwise.4. In absence of evidence, any conclusion drawn by the trial Court on thebasis of speculation and presumption with regard to existence or non-existence of a particular fact is not sustainable.5. The purpose of sealing the case property in parcels on the spot is toavoid manipulation or tampering thereof by someone else and to ensureits uninterrupted dispatch to Forensic Lab for opinion of the expert.Delayed sealing of case property without plausible reason casts a doubton its genuineness, hence, such recovery is of no avail to prosecution.