Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 103, 242, 342 & 382-B Requirement of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings—Delay in lodging FIR—Benefit of doubt—Standard of proof in criminal cases—Applicability of doctrine "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" The rule of giving the benefit of doubt to an accused is a principle deeply rooted in criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding against wrongful convictions. In Islamic Criminal Law, this principle derives its foundation from the sayings of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, highlighting that it is preferable for ten guilty individuals to escape punishment than for one innocent person to suffer. The prosecution failed to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 103, Cr.P.C, which necessitate the presence of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings. The recovery witnesses were close relatives of the complainant, rendering their testimony unreliable. The delay in lodging the FIR, without any plausible explanation, raises doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's story, suggesting deliberation and afterthought. The prosecution also failed to establish a source of light at the crime scene, which was crucial for identifying the accused during a nighttime occurrence. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in all) was held applicable, following the precedent established in Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat, PLD 2019 SC 527, wherein it was declared that any deliberate falsehood by a witness on a material aspect renders their entire testimony unreliable. The prosecution is burdened with proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistency, contradiction, or deficiency in evidence must necessarily benefit the accused. ----Cited Cases: Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat, PLD 2019 SC 527 Khalil v. The State The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown, PLD 1951 Lahore 66 ----Disposition: The appeal was accepted, the impugned judgments of both subordinate courts were set aside, and the convict-appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Summary: Ss. 376, 342 PPCAbsence of any sign of resistance or injury.... benefit of doubt.... It is better to acquit a guilty person than to punish an innocent is guiding principle proclaimed by the Holly Prophet (S.A.W.W).

Summary: The applicants are challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, which took cognizance of various offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) against the applicants. These offenses include sections 342, 337-V, 377, 377-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, and 149 PPC. Additionally, the Magistrate took cognizance of an offense under Section 365-A PPC against some of the applicants.The applicants argue that the Magistrate's order goes beyond the scope of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and should be set aside. They claim that the Magistrate's order did not consider the facts and circumstances presented by the investigating officer's report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.The Deputy Prosecutor General of Sindh and counsel for respondent No. 1 argue that the Magistrate's order was valid. They contend that the applicants were named in the FIR with specific roles in the alleged offenses and that the Magistrate's decision to accept the interim report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was appropriate.The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions related to the Magistrate's powers to take cognizance of offenses based on a police report and the procedure for adding or subtracting sections of the PPC at the time of framing charges. The judgment ultimately sets aside the Magistrate's order to the extent that it added Section 365-A PPC to the case.

Summary: The case involved FIR under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 342, and 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Philora, District Sialkot. After considering arguments from both sides and examining the records, the court noted that all alleged offenses, except for section 337-A(ii) PPC, were bailable. Concerning the injury mentioned in section 337-A(ii) PPC, the court emphasized that the medico-legal certificate did not indicate bone exposure or fracture, contrary to the initial description as "bone deep." The court cited medical opinions that clarified the distinction between "Shajjah-e-Khafifah" and "Shajjah-e-Mudihah" and asserted that the injury fell under the former, making it bailable. Regarding the recovery of evidence, specifically a "sota," the court argued that after a certain period, recovery would not be meaningful to the prosecution. Citing precedent, the court held that bail cannot be denied for bailable offenses based solely on the possibility of abscondence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, confirming Tariq Mahmood's pre-arrest bail, provided he furnished fresh bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The court emphasized that its observations were tentative and strictly related to the bail petition's disposition.

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the judgment dated 30.06.2015 from the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Sanghar, which convicted him under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for robbery and Section 342 P.P.C. for wrongful confinement. The appellant was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with an additional sentence for the other charge. The conviction stemmed from allegations of robbery involving the theft of a vehicle and other items from the complainant. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Error in Conviction: The Federal Shariat Court found substantial issues with the prosecution's case. The evidence against the appellant was primarily based on the complainant's testimony, which was contradicted by other witnesses. Notably, the eyewitness did not identify the appellant, and there was significant delay in lodging the FIR, which lacked a reasonable explanation. --Insufficient Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide corroboratory evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and noted that crucial details, such as the alleged theft of mobile phones, were not supported by the evidence. Additionally, there was no recovery of stolen items from the appellant. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345) - Established that a reasonable doubt created by a single circumstance entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) ----S. 328-A---Willful assault, ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, and harm to a child---Scope and application---Conviction---Accused persons, husband and wife, employed a minor girl under ten years of age as a domestic worker and subjected her to mistreatment, physical harm, and neglect, depriving her of proper food, medical care, and clothing---Prosecution witnesses, including medical experts, corroborated that the minor sustained multiple injuries due to physical abuse and burns, with evidence showing she was left unattended in severe weather conditions and forced to seek food from neighbors---Defense failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the prosecution’s claims or to establish that the injuries were accidental---Held, that the accused persons, having admitted that the minor was in their care, were responsible for her well-being, and their failure to provide medical treatment or basic care constituted an offense under S.328-A, P.P.C.---Conviction upheld, and accused sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) ----S. 154---First Information Report (FIR)---Validity---Effect of procedural irregularity---FIR registered on the complaint of a minor child through an Assistant Commissioner, without her signature or thumb impression, challenged by the defense as invalid---Held, that non-signing of an FIR by the complainant is a procedural irregularity that does not vitiate the trial or affect the prosecution’s case, particularly where the FIR serves as a mechanism to set the criminal law in motion and does not constitute substantive evidence---Reliance placed on various precedents confirming that a mere procedural lapse in FIR registration does not render the proceedings void. (c) Evidence---Medical and circumstantial evidence---Role in criminal trials ----Statements of prosecution witnesses, medical reports, and photographic evidence demonstrated that the minor suffered physical injuries over an extended period due to neglect and abuse at the hands of the accused---Defense claimed injuries were accidental, but medical experts confirmed burn wounds and other injuries were consistent with intentional harm---Held, that although there was no direct eyewitness account of the accused inflicting injuries, medical and circumstantial evidence formed a continuous chain linking them to the crime, justifying conviction under S. 328-A, P.P.C. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) ----S. 201---Causing disappearance of evidence to screen offender---Charge against the male accused for attempting to conceal the minor to prevent legal consequences---Prosecution failed to produce substantive evidence proving the deliberate disappearance of the victim to avoid prosecution---Accused acquitted of charge under S. 201, P.P.C. ---- Disposition: Accused persons convicted under S. 328-A, P.P.C., and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, with an additional one-month imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine. Accused acquitted of other charges, including wrongful confinement (S. 342, P.P.C.) and criminal intimidation (S. 506, P.P.C.), due to lack of evidence. ----Cited Cases: Faqir Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1971 Lahore 929) Sameeullah Khan v. The State (2000 MLD 1290) Muhammad Qadeer v. The State (2007 YLR 625) Ghulam Abbas and 03 others v. The State and another (1997 P Cr. L J 2091) State v. Ali Asghar (2017 P Cr. L J 349) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Extra-Judicial Confession – Role of Police Diaries ----Azad Jammu & Kashmir Islamic Penal (Laws) Enforcement Act, 1974 – Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (S.302(b), S.302(c), S.34) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S.342, S.544-A, S.382-B) – Arms Act, 1965 (S.13/20/65) – Burden of Proof – Admissibility of Evidence. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302(c) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Bagh, for the murder of Muhammad Pervaiz, which was later upheld by the Shariat Court, albeit modified under Section 302(b). The complainant sought enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir examined the case based on circumstantial evidence, motive, and an alleged extra-judicial confession. ----Key Findings: --Circumstantial Evidence: Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events, each link conclusively pointing to the guilt of the accused. Missing links or doubtful connections break the chain and render the evidence unreliable. Motive: Where the prosecution introduces a motive, it bears the burden to prove it through credible evidence. Failure to establish motive weakens the prosecution's case, especially in circumstantial evidence cases. --Extra-Judicial Confession: Joint extra-judicial confessions are considered weak evidence. They must be corroborated by other reliable evidence, which was absent in this case. Police Diaries: Police diaries are not substantive evidence and cannot form the basis of conviction or acquittal. Courts may use them for assistance but not rely upon them as primary evidence. Delay in Recording Statements: Unexplained delays in recording witness statements weaken the reliability of witness testimony and raise suspicion of fabrication or afterthought. ----Cited Principles: Circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Motive, if alleged, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Extra-judicial confession is inherently weak and requires strong corroboration. Reliance on police diaries for conviction is impermissible. ----Disposition: The appeals of the convicts were accepted, and they were acquitted of all charges. The revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciaiton of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Prosecution casewas that accused persons on gun point committed unnatural offence with complainant andthey also made a video and threatened that in case he informed anyone they would show thevideo to others---Complainant of the case appeared as witness and reiterated the contents ofFIR and narrated the entire story in line with complaint---Victim correctly identified all theaccused persons in the Trial Court---Evidence of said witness was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, but nothing benefit or advantageous had come on record---Even otherwise, thedefence had failed to put any suggestion to the victim for false implication of the accusedpersons---Prosecution case had been strengthened by the medical evidence produced by theMedical Officer---Medical Officer opined that the accused persons were mentally andphysically fit to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Medical Officer also opined that thevictim was sexually assaulted by many persons due to which tone of anal splinter was lessand duration was old---Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony---Prosecutionhad produced corroborative and confidence inspiring evidence and the defence had failed tocause any dent in the evidence of prosecution---Circumstances established that accusedpersons failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment---Trial Court had awarded sentence of seven years to accused persons by the impugnedjudgment,being harsh was reduced to three years in circumstances---Appeal againstconviction was dismissed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, defamation, criminalintimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection topublic servant, common intention---Apreciation of evidence---Disclosures of accusedpersons---Admissibility---Prosecution case had been supported by the disclosures of theaccused pesons, who admitted their guilt and narrated the entire story for making plan toblackmail and commit sodomy with the victim---Discloures of the accsused personsdiscovered new facts, whereby the accused persons made plan to compel the victim to bringhis younger brother, the same was admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury ot induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Hostile witnesses---Effect---Defence objected that father and uncle of victim, who appearedas witnesses but did not support the case of prosecution and thus were declared hostile, whichhad made the case doubtful---Record showed that father and uncle of victim were not directwitnesses of the case and Investigating Officer unnecessarily associated both the saidwitnesses in the case---Evidence of said witnesses had not made any dent or damage to thecase of prosecution, when the prosecution had produced direct and medical evidence againstthe accused persons.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Solitary statement of victim---Evidentiary value---Solitarystatement of the victim was sufficient to convict the accused.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging---Effect---Mere delay in lodging FIRwas not of any help for defence to claim acquittal of the accused.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciatin of evidence---Delay inlodging FIR---Effect---Allegedly, matter was reported to the police after the delayof 44 days without any plausible explanation-Facts remained that in such like cases, theprestige of family, risk and honour was involved and people were reluctant in filing report tothe police---In the present case, the victim kept mum due to the fear that accused might showthe video---Accused persons, however, started blackmailing the victim and forced him tobring his younger brother for unnatural offence---Said facts compelled the victim to informhis elders and to lodge FIR---In these circumstances, delay in filing FIR was natural. Kamran alias Kami v. The State 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 rel.

Summary: The petitioners, sought the jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 561-A Cr.PC for quashing under Sections 498-B/342/365/506/109 PPC at Police Station Oghi. The court heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the available record. However, it ruled that at the present stage when the FIR has already been registered, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered under Article 199 of the Constitution read with Section 561-A Cr.PC. The court held that it would refrain from rendering any findings on the merits of the case at this stage to avoid prejudicing the case of the petitioners in any manner. It advised the petitioners to raise the legal and factual issues before the investigating officer and even before the framing of charges by the trial court, if a challan is submitted against them. The trial court has the power to discharge the petitioners if appropriate. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan to support its decision, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the court begins when a charge is preferred before it and not before that stage. Considering that the petitioners have alternative remedies available, the court dismissed the present petition in limine.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The appellant, Abdul Qayoom, along with others, was being tried for offences under sections 302, 342, 147, 148, 149, 201, 202, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) by the District Criminal Court, Haveli Kahuta.The occurrence took place on 28th August 2013, involving the murder of two individuals. The appellant was arrested on 9th September 2013.The trial faced significant delays, with only 7 out of 33 witnesses' statements recorded over two years.The appellant filed for bail citing statutory delays exceeding two years. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to a revision petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Shariat Court, which was partially accepted?granting bail to another accused, Muhammad Shabir, but not to Abdul Qayoom, labeling him a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal.----Issues:Whether Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail on the ground of statutory delays in the trial.Whether Abdul Qayoom can be classified as a "dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal" to deny him bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that Abdul Qayoom should be granted bail.The Court found that the appellant was entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., as the trial had not concluded within two years and there was no delay attributable to him.The Shariat Court's designation of Qayoom as a dangerous, desperate, and hardened criminal lacked substantiated evidence. The case against Qayoom was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily a delayed statement from a single witness, which was not deemed sufficient to label him as such.Previous case law indicated that to declare someone a hardened criminal, there must be substantive evidence considering the motive, role, and societal impact, which was not adequately presented in Qayoom's case. The appeal was accepted. The judgment of the Shariat Court was set aside, and Qayoom was ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnished a bail bond amounting to one million rupees with two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount.----Citations/Precedents:Irfan & another vs. State through Advocate-General and another (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2013, decided on 24.09.2013)Farzana Imtiaz vs. Tariq Hussain and another (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2012, decided on 19.7.2013)Muhammad Siddique vs. Muhammad Behram and another [1998 SCR 146]Muhammad Aziz vs. the State [2000 SCR 1]Moundar vs. The State [PLD 1990 SC 934]