Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 154, 156(3), 157, 164 & 173 ---- Scope and legality of pre-FIR inquiry under Section 156(3) ---- Confessional statements recorded during unlawful inquiry ---- Admissibility and evidentiary value The Supreme Court held that the purported “inquiry” initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the registration of FIR was ultra vires the scheme of the Code. A Magistrate is not empowered under Section 156(3) to authorize an “inquiry”; such provision only permits ordering an investigation into a cognizable offence after registration under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The arrests, interrogations, and recovery of the body in the present case all occurred during an illegal “inquiry,” thereby circumventing mandatory safeguards under Sections 154–157 Cr.P.C. This violation undermined the voluntariness of the confessional statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which were made after prolonged police custody. The Court held that such confessions, recorded in the backdrop of procedural illegality and custodial pressure, could not be treated as voluntary. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 ---- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ---- S. 7(a) ---- Kidnapping for ransom and murder of minor --- Conflicting confessional statements --- Benefit of doubt Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping and murder of a minor. The Court found that their confessional statements were mutually contradictory, exculpatory in parts, retracted later, and lacked corroboration. One accused attributed the crime to the other, and vice versa. In absence of independent evidence, such confessions could not sustain conviction. The DNA report was inconclusive; identification of the decomposed body was based merely on clothing. There was no proof of ransom demand, and the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) [Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984] ---- Art. 43 (now Art. 164), Art. 22 ---- Judicial confession --- Evidentiary threshold --- Principles reiterated A retracted judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and confidence-inspiring to be relied upon without corroboration. The Court reiterated that confessions must be read as a whole and cannot be accepted in parts. Where exculpatory elements exist and there is no independent corroboration, the confession loses its probative value. The delay in recording the confessions after prolonged custody also raised suspicion regarding their voluntariness. (d) Criminal justice system ---- Abuse of coercive powers by police ---- Misuse of ‘madd’ entry and unauthorized inquiries ---- Directions issued to ensure compliance with Cr.P.C. The Court noted with concern the practice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of entering mere information as a ‘madd’ and then initiating inquiries under Section 156(3) without registering an FIR. It was emphasized that such unauthorized proceedings erode constitutional safeguards and result in miscarriage of justice. Directions were issued to the Prosecutor General and IGP to ensure strict adherence to the statutory framework under Cr.P.C. and to educate magistrates and police officers accordingly. Disposition: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside; appellants acquitted. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) • Mohammad Ramzan v. The State (PLJ 1979 SC 302) • Tariq Mehmood v. The State (2002 SCMR 1493) • Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139) • Majeed v. The State (2010 SCMR 55) • Muhammad Parvez v. The State (2007 SCMR 670) • Indian cases: Gopal Das Sindhi, Suresh Chand Jain, Sakiri Vasu Cited Provisions: • Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 • Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7(a) • Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Ss. 2(f), 2(k), 2(l), 154, 156(3), 157, 164, 173 • Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 22, 43 (now 164)

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Arts. 38, 39 & 40; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- Ss. 164 & 173— Confession while in police custody recorded by a private journalist—Admissibility—The appellant, on physical remand and confined in the police‑station lock‑up, was taken before a reporter who filmed an “interview” later aired on television; both the trial court and High Court treated the footage as a confession. The Supreme Court held that any statement made to, or in the custody of, a police officer (Arts. 38‑39) is inadmissible unless recorded in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, and that only the portion distinctly leading to a fact discovered is provable (Art. 40). Sections 164/364 Cr.P.C. lay down the exclusive procedure for a voluntary judicial confession; delegating or outsourcing this power to a journalist is illegal and defeats the statutory safeguards. Reliance on the impugned video was therefore a serious misdirection. Cited cases: Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. State PLD 2003 SC 704; Muhammad Amin v. State 2000 SCMR 1784. (b) Law of Evidence—Doctrine of “last seen” — Chance witness—Scope— The prosecution’s sole ocular link was a neighbour (PW‑2) who “last saw” the seven‑year‑old victim with the appellant the previous evening. He lived over half a kilometre away, offered no plausible reason for being at the mosque after congregational prayers, omitted to name the appellant when the FIR was lodged next morning, and surfaced only after arrest. Held, a chance witness must furnish convincing explanation of presence; last‑seen is the weakest type of circumstantial evidence and cannot by itself sustain a capital conviction without strong, independent corroboration. Cited cases: Muhammad Abid v. State PLD 2018 SC 813; Mst. Resham Bibi v. Sheerin Khan 1997 SCMR 1416; Khurshid v. State PLD 1996 SC 305. (c) Criminal trial—Circumstantial evidence—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt— When prosecution rests entirely on circumstances, the chain must be so inter‑linked that it leads only to the guilt of the accused; any missing or weak link entitles the accused to acquittal. Inconsistencies regarding time of FIR, recovery of the body, motive, and contradictory stories about seizure of the alleged weapon (iron file) shattered the prosecution chain. Under settled law, a single reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. Cited cases: Rehmatullah v. State 2024 SCMR 1782; Naveed Asghar v. State PLD 2021 SC 600. (d) Criminal Procedure—Recovery of weapon—Contradictory prosecution evidence— One witness (PW‑3) claimed police collected the iron file from the scene on 09‑03‑2014; police witnesses (PW‑5 & PW‑7) asserted it was produced by the appellant after arrest on 10‑03‑2014. Failure to examine the second mashir and omission to match bloodstains cast grave doubt; recovery evidence consequently discarded. (e) Constitution of Pakistan --- Arts. 4, 9, 10A & 19A—Police facilitation of televised custodial “confessions”—Fair‑trial safeguards and media ethics— Court deprecated the growing practice of parading detainees before cameras, holding it violates presumption of innocence, right to dignity and a fair trial, and can prejudice investigations and adjudication. Directions issued to Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, PEMRA and Provincial Chief Secretaries to frame and enforce SOPs curbing media access to persons in custody and protecting rights of accused and victims. Disposition: Criminal petition converted to appeal and allowed; conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted by benefit of doubt and released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-Amd---Conviction on circumstantial evidence---Standard of proof---Duty of court---Prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence including the recovery of a knife, a video clip, and statements of non-eye-witnesses---Court held that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, unbroken, and directly connect the accused with the crime---If any link is missing or inconclusive, conviction cannot be sustained---Reference made to Imran alias Dullay v. The State (2015 SCMR 155), Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274), and Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 164---Confessional statement---Legal requirements---Inadmissibility---Statement of co-accused recorded after 11 days of arrest, without reflection period, and without removal of handcuffs---Court held that delay, custodial torture, and absence of legal safeguards rendered the statement involuntary and inadmissible---Further held that the co-accused became a witness of an alleged extra-judicial confession of the appellant, but was wrongly treated as an accused instead of being made a prosecution witness. **(c) Qatl-i-Amd---Medical evidence---Conflict between cause of death and alleged weapon---Doctor opined death due to cardiorespiratory arrest, not specifically caused by sharp or bullet wounds---Injuries listed included deep lacerations and cuts, yet medico-legal certificate ambiguously suggested use of both bullet and sharp weapons without clarity---Such medical inconsistency cast serious doubt on prosecution’s version and weakened evidentiary value of the recovery of knife. **(d) Law of Evidence---Forensic Report---Bloodstained weapon---Absence of blood group match---Knife recovered from the appellant was stained with human blood but FSL report did not confirm it matched deceased’s blood---Court held that mere recovery of bloodstained weapon without forensic linkage to the victim is not sufficient to establish guilt---Relied on Khalid Javed v. The State (2003 SCMR 1419), Hamid Nadeem v. The State (2011 SCMR 1233), and Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600). (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 13-E---Recovery of knife---Court observed that while the recovery may constitute an offence under the Arms Ordinance, it cannot be considered substantive proof for murder without corroborative forensic evidence. **(f) Criminal Trial---Benefit of doubt---Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt---Prosecution failed to establish motive, chain of events, or forensic linkage conclusively---Confessional statement inadmissible, video clip not verified, and medical report contradictory---Court found material gaps in prosecution's case and held that conviction based on such weak circumstantial evidence was unsafe. (g) Disposition Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under S. 302(b) PPC by the Trial Court were set aside. Appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----Ss. 164(2), 364 & 173 --- Confessional/statement under S. 164—Magistrate’s duty to promptly forward to the trial Court—Failure to do so is a procedural irregularity that cannot prejudice the complainant or foreclose recording of the Magistrate’s testimony—Trial Court erred in refusing to examine PW-18 (then SDM who recorded S. 164 statement) solely because the statement was not before the Court prior to S. 242 proceedings—High Court also erred in upholding that refusal. Court directed that an inquiry be initiated into non-compliance with S. 164(2) and recurrence of such lapses by Magistrates; High Court to issue system-level directions and training to ensure timely compliance. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 540 --- Summoning material witness—Scope and duty—Court’s powers under S. 540 are wide and two-fold (“may” and “shall”); if evidence appears essential to a just decision, the Court must summon/examine or re-call the witness even at a late stage—Trial Court ought to have summoned PW-18 notwithstanding earlier procedural orders; adherence to technicalities cannot defeat the quest for truth in a murder trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 242 --- Accused’s examination—Where earlier proceedings overlooked an essential prosecution statement, the Trial Court may consider re-recording the S. 242 Cr.PC statement, if necessary to secure the ends of justice. (d) Constitution / Administration of Justice --- ----Right to fair trial (principles reaffirmed) Fair trial is a foundational guarantee; Courts must ensure all relevant evidence is brought on record and that parties receive a meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine—Procedural lapses by public functionaries (e.g., delayed forwarding of a S. 164 statement) cannot be visited upon a victim/complainant—Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. (e) High Court—Inherent Powers ----S. 561-A, Cr.PC --- Inherent jurisdiction—Not contingent on a party’s application; may be exercised suo motu to prevent abuse of process and to secure substantial justice—High Court’s dismissal of revision on the ground that the Trial Court’s order dated 23-06-2023 had attained “finality” reflected non-exercise of the inherent power where intervention was warranted. (f) Practice & Procedure ----Non-communication of order; reconsideration Order dated 23-06-2023 was passed in the complainant’s absence and not communicated; such circumstances furnished cogent grounds for reconsideration rather than rigid adherence to the prior order. Cited Cases: — Disposition: Revision accepted; orders of the High Court (22-04-2024) and District Criminal Court, Haveli/Kahutta (including orders dated 23-06-2023 and 20-12-2023 to the relevant extent) set aside; Trial Court directed to summon and record the statement of PW-18 (Syed Asif Gardezi). Trial Court may also consider re-recording the accused’s S. 242 statement if needed to meet the ends of justice. Copy of the judgment to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court through Registrar for action in terms of paras 8–9 (inquiry and systemic directions).

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Circumstantial Evidence—Standard of Proof: ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 468, 471; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, Ss. 15 & 19; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. Accused was charged and convicted under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance, and the Arms Act for murder, forgery, and illegal possession of arms. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, call data records, identification parade, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused. Any missing link in the chain renders the evidence unreliable. In the instant case, serious discrepancies were noted in the collection, presentation, and corroboration of circumstantial evidence. Delays in recording witness statements, failure to follow protocols in the identification parade, contradictions in call data records, and absence of credible corroboration undermined the prosecution's case. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal cases. -----Cited Cases: Ibrahim and others v. The State (2009 SCMR 407) Imran alias Dully and another v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155) Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCMR 336) (b) Criminal Law—Hearsay Evidence—Admissibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. The supplementary statement of a witness implicating the accused was deemed inadmissible as it amounted to hearsay. The witness admitted that his knowledge about the accused's involvement was derived from information provided by investigation officials. Hearsay evidence, unless corroborated by direct evidence, cannot be relied upon for conviction. The court emphasized that only direct evidence, as stipulated under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, is admissible. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Azam and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2013 PCr.LJ 36) Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872) (c) Criminal Law—Identification Parade—Legal Requirements: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Identification parade proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities, including the accused being exposed to witnesses prior to the parade, absence of details regarding dummies, and failure to verify police custody duration. The Magistrate failed to record essential findings and verify compliance with prescribed procedures. The court held that such irregularities render the identification parade unreliable. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 769) Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424) (d) Criminal Law—Recovery Evidence—Admissibility and Corroboration: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Recovery of incriminating articles, including the weapon of offence and vehicle, failed to meet the required standard of proof. Evidence of recovery was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and procedural flaws were evident. Moreover, forensic analysis of the weapon and empties raised doubts due to irregularities in their handling and documentation. ----Cited Cases: Mian Khalid Perviz v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF and another (2021 SCMR 522) Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) (e) Investigation by Unauthorized Officer—Validity: ----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, S. 26(3). The investigation was conducted by an officer (Head Constable) who lacked the requisite legal authority to investigate a murder case. Under the Police Act, cases of murder must be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. The investigation by an unauthorized officer vitiated the credibility of the prosecution's case. (f) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt—Acquittal: ----General Principles of Criminal Law. The court reiterated the principle that benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not as a concession. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and multiple inconsistencies created significant doubts. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted. ----Cited Cases: Maqsood Ahmad v. The State and others (2017 MLD 1415) Mukhtiar Hussain v. The State (2017 MLD 745) Pirzada alias Peer v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 605) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Sentence reduction ---- Background: On October 14, 2011, a motorbike rider collided with a pedestrian standing by the roadside, causing severe head injuries to the pedestrian who later succumbed to his injuries. The initial report led to a case being registered under section 337-G, later amended to section 320 Azad Penal Code (APC) following the victim's death. The trial court convicted the motorbike rider, sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment and a diyat of Rs.20,55,936, payable in installments. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1. Whether the judgments of the trial court and High Court were consistent with legal principles and the factual evidence. 2. Whether the testimonies of the witnesses were reliable despite noted discrepancies. 3. Whether the motorbike rider's actions constituted negligence and reckless driving under section 320 APC. 4. Whether the imposed sentence and diyat were appropriate under the circumstances. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court partially accepted the appeal. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced to the period already served. The diyat amount of Rs.20,55,936 remained unchanged, to be paid in specified installments. The Court found that the incident occurred due to the appellant's negligence, supported by the site plan and consistent witness testimonies. Witnesses consistently identified the appellant as the motorbike rider, corroborated by medical evidence. The site plan indicated the appellant’s deviation from the correct path, supporting the prosecution's claim of negligence and reckless driving. Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies did not undermine the overall consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s case. The legal framework under section 320 APC justifies the imposition of both imprisonment and diyat for reckless or negligent driving resulting in death. Outcome: Conviction upheld; simple imprisonment reduced to time served; diyat amount and payment terms affirmed. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 337-G and Section 320 Azad Penal Code (APC) Section 173, Section 242, Section 342, and Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) General principles regarding witness testimony and minor discrepancies in judicial pronouncements.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497—Bail—Prohibitory Clause—Juvenile Offender—Scope—Grant of Bail in Heinous Offences. The petitioner, charged under Section 392, P.P.C., was accused of inflicting fatal dagger injuries on the deceased. The prosecution's case was supported by a supplementary statement of the deceased, eyewitness accounts recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., CCTV footage, and forensic analysis confirming the crime weapon was stained with human blood. The evidence collectively established a prima facie case against the petitioner. Despite the petitioner being a juvenile, the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., as it carried the punishment of death or life imprisonment. The Court held that mere juvenility does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in cases involving heinous offences. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872): ----Dying Declaration—Supplementary Statement—Admissibility—Corroboration by Eyewitnesses and Forensic Evidence. The supplementary statement of the deceased, recorded in the hospital, directly implicated the petitioner. Eyewitness accounts under Section 164, Cr.P.C., corroborated the dying declaration, and the CCTV footage analysis by Punjab Forensic Science Agency confirmed no tampering or editing. Forensic evidence from the recovered dagger matched human blood, strengthening the prosecution's case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 392—Murder by Dagger—Sufficiency of Evidence—Medical and Forensic Evidence. The cause of death, as determined by the post-mortem report, was severe injuries to the liver and major abdominal vessels caused by dagger blows. The forensic evidence and medical reports fully supported the prosecution’s stance and directly connected the petitioner with the commission of the crime. (d) Juvenile Justice: ----Bail—Juvenile Accused—Heinous Offence—Principle of Bail in Cases Involving Death or Life Imprisonment. While the principle of bail for juveniles generally leans towards leniency, the Supreme Court clarified that in cases involving heinous crimes carrying death or life imprisonment, juvenility alone is insufficient to justify bail if the evidence establishes a prima facie case. -----Disposition: The bail application was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

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: Acquittal granted----(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979): ----S. 17(4) Harrabah---Conviction and sentence under section 17(4) of the Ordinance and sections 412/202, P.P.C.---Benefit of doubt---Appellants were convicted for Harrabah and sentenced to life imprisonment; however, their conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple material discrepancies, procedural irregularities, and unreliable evidence. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 164 & 364---Statements of witnesses and confessional statements of accused---Procedural flaws rendering evidence inadmissible---Statements under section 164 of the Code were recorded without following mandatory procedures, including the presence of the accused and their right to cross-examine witnesses. Confessional statements of appellants were deemed involuntary, vague, and recorded without proper safeguards under sections 164 and 364 of the Code. Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713). (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984): ----Art. 129(g)---Adverse inference---Failure to examine material witnesses or produce essential documentary evidence---Prosecution abandoned material witnesses without justification and failed to explain significant procedural delays and irregularities. Adverse inference was drawn under Art. 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Reliance placed on Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486). (d) Criminal Evidence---Reliability and corroboration: ----Recovery of crime weapons and other items---Flaws in safe custody and transmission---Alleged recoveries of pistols, mobile phones, and snatched currency notes were not corroborated by credible evidence. Prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of evidence, and recovery memos lacked essential details. FSL reports were deemed unreliable due to procedural irregularities. (e) Burden of Proof---Standard of evidence in criminal cases: ----Reasonable doubt---Prosecution's failure to meet its burden---Conviction cannot be based on conjectures or probabilities---Any single infirmity creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Reliance placed on Ghulam Qadir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (f) Disposition: ----Appeal allowed---Conviction and sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants under section 17(4) of the Ordinance and sections 412/202, P.P.C., were set aside due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities. Appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.01-I of 2023 and Criminal Revision No.01-I of 2023 were dismissed. -----Cited Cases Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713) Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Ghulam Qadir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)

Summary: Bail granted---Background:This case involves two criminal petitions (No. 1121 & 1128 of 2023) heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from orders dated September 18, 2023, by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the bail applications of Salman Mushtaq and another for pre-arrest bail, and Ahmar Ali for post-arrest bail. The petitions were lodged following an FIR (No. 1358/2023) under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, accusing Salman Mushtaq and Naheed Akhtar of abducting Iqra Bibi for the purpose of rape, with later implications involving Iqra Bibi's brother, Ahmar Ali, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.----Issues:Whether the marriage between Iqra Bibi and Salman Mushtaq, claimed to be consensual and legally documented, should influence the bail decision.Whether the initial non-nomination of Ahmar Ali in the FIR, and subsequent implications based on the victim?s statement, casts doubt on the credibility of the abduction charge.Whether the lack of immediate medical examination to substantiate the rape allegations affects the strength of the prosecution's case.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted bail to both petitioners. It was held that:The courts below did not adequately consider the consensual nature of the marriage between Iqra Bibi and Salman Mushtaq, as evidenced by legal documentation and witness testimonies, including that of the co-accused, Ahmar Ali.The FIR's delayed implication of Ahmar Ali based solely on the alleged victim's later statement, and the absence of immediate medical examination for rape, raises questions about the prosecution's case's veracity and completeness.The Court determined that the arrest and continued detention of the accused would lead to undue humiliation and potentially unwarranted persecution without reasonable grounds indicating their involvement in the alleged crime, justifying the granting of both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail under further inquiry.----Citations/Precedents:Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 - Pertains to the kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, etc.Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Pertains to the recording of confessions and statements.Salman Akram Raja and another vs. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (PLJ 2013 SC 107) - Directed mandatory administration of DNA tests and preservation of DNA evidence in rape cases.Section 497, Cr.P.C. - Discusses the conditions under which bail may be granted or denied, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds of suspicion against the accused for involvement in the offence.---Quote:(1) In rape cases, administration of DNA test (Deoxyribonucleic acid) and preservation of DNA evidence is mandatory. (2) Further inquiry refers to a notional assessment creating doubts regarding the involvement of accused (3) Reasonable grounds are the grounds attracted to the judicial mind which are not imaginative or presumptuous.