Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 410 Cr. PC.1. Whenever there is unreasonable delay in lodging the report, then suchreport is to be seen in the context that before its registration, consultationand deliberation has been made and as such the prosecution story is to beconsidered with extra care and caution. However, in cases of honor killing,such delay could be leniently taken due to peculiar fallback of suchallegation.2. Where the contents of FIR or statements made under sections 161 and164 Cr. P.C and Court statements are not in line with each other,then such statements/evidence could not be considered in favour ofprosecution.3. Non-production of lodger of report seriously damaged the case ofprosecution as it is the foundation stone of the prosecution case.4. When the ocular account is not supported by the medico-legal evidence,then its benefit has to be given to the accused.5. Prosecution is not bound to set a motive as it could be in the exclusiveknowledge of the deceased and accused but once it set a motive then it isbound to prove the same.6. A single fact which creates a doubt in the mind of a prudent man issufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Summary: Sections of law; 410 & 439 Cr.P.C, sections 324, 337-D, 337 F(i), F (iii) PPC read with section 15 of the KPK Arms Act, 2013 and Article 129-G of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.(a) Prosecution is not duty bound to produce the entire evidence at its disposal.(b)If a case is proved on the evidence produced in the case, beyond reasonable doubt, an inference under Article 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 may not invariably be taken.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 410---Qatl-i-Amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delayed confession---Forensic report, non-production of---Effect---Complainant was mother of deceased and lodged FIR against accused for committing Qatli-Amd of her son---Sole eye-witness of occurrence contradicted case of prosecution andappellant was kept in illegal confinement of more than 21 days instead of 14 days---On 17thday of the occurrence, not only his extra-judicial confession was recorded but he was alsoproduced before the Magistrate and his confessional statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. wasrecorded---After recording confessional statement, accused was further detained byinvestigating officer for further 4 days instead of his immediate shifting to judicial custody---No implicit reliance could be placed on confessional statement of accused---Prosecutionfailed to establish the death of deceased and despite recovery of crime weapon neither crimeweapon was produced in court nor Forensic Science Laboratory report was obtained to affirmthat same was in running condition---Prosecution failed to establish charge against accusedthrough confidence inspiring evidence beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Trial Courtfailed to extend benefit of doubt to the appellant---Judgment of Trial Court suffered frommisreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and dishonestimprovements in testimonies of interested witnesses existed and independent corroborationlacked in material aspects---False implication of accused could not be ruled out---High Courtset aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted him ofcharge---Appeal was allowed

Summary: Background:Arif Hussain Danish filed a criminal appeal under section 410 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 21-08-2017 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit-Baltistan. He was convicted and sentenced for various offenses, including those under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Arms Ordinance.----Issues:Whether the appellant was rightly convicted based on the charges against him.Whether there were any irregularities or legal flaws in the trial court's judgment warranting interference by the appellate court.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The prosecution's case was based on the complaint of Israr-ud-Din, who witnessed the appellant firing on Abdul Majeed's vehicle, causing injuries. Eye witnesses and police officials caught the appellant red-handed while he was fleeing, and the weapon used in the crime was recovered from him.The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court's judgment was against the evidence on record and that the appellant was convicted on flimsy grounds. However, the prosecution contended that the evidence, including ocular and medical evidence, along with recoveries and confessional statements, proved the appellant's guilt beyond doubt.After analyzing the evidence and arguments, the court found the testimonies of the eye witnesses to be credible and consistent. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence, and the recovery of the weapon strengthened the prosecution's case. Additionally, the appellant's confession further incriminated him.The court concluded that there were no material irregularities or legal flaws in the trial court's judgment that warranted interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.----Citations/Precedents:Section 410 Cr.P.CAnti-Terrorism Act 1997

Summary: S. 410, 435, 439 CrPCS. 302 PPCRequirements of Dying Declaration.

Summary: Criminal Appeal U/S. 410, Cr.P.C. offence U/S 302,324,337 F (i) 34 PPC Benefit of doubt. Two PWs one Matiullah (PW4) and wife of deceased PW5 stated that blood was oozing from his head but according to medical report Ex:PM no injury has been shown on the head. Similarly PW2 FazalRehman stated spade blow on the head but I.O appeared as PW16 who visited the spot but he did not recovered blood stained earth from the place of deceased. This non-existence of injury on the head and non-recovery of blood at the venue of crime casts serious doubts and authenticity of prosecution case. Appeal allowed, Judgment/conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appeal is filed under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The impugned judgment, dated 01.10.2011, was passed by the Learned Special Judge (Court No II) Anti-Terrorism Court Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory. The appellant was awarded a death sentence under Section 302 (b) PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and ordered to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544 A of Cr.P.C. In default, a six-month simple imprisonment was ordered. Additionally, the appellant was awarded death sentence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and a fine. In default, another six-month simple imprisonment was ordered. The case stems from FIR No 06/2011 dated 04.01.2011, registered at P.S Kohsar Islamabad. ----Issues: The primary issue revolves around the appellant's conviction and sentencing under Section 302 (b) PPC and Section 7 of the ATA. The appeal also questions the application of terrorism charges against the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The prosecution, led by complainant Shaheryar Ali Taseer, detailed the murder of Governor Salman Taseer on 04.01.2011. The appellant, a security guard, allegedly shot the deceased while returning from a restaurant. The medical evidence presented by Dr. Muhammad Arshad supported the prosecution's case, establishing the cause of death and the nature of injuries inflicted. Witness testimonies, including those of ASI Iftikhar Ali, Constable Abdul Raheem, and others, provided further evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene and the murder weapon. The judgment references historical legal precedents and Islamic law principles regarding intent, motive, and punishment for crimes. The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 302 (b) PPC but set aside the conviction under Section 7 (a) of the ATA due to lack of evidence supporting terrorism charges. Mitigating circumstances argued by the defense were not deemed applicable, and the appellant's actions were characterized as preplanned and cold-blooded. The appeal against the conviction under Section 302 (b) PPC was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative. ----Citations/Precedents: Shafique Ahmed Vs The State, 1997 PCrLJ 1 Iftikhar Mehmood Vs Qaiser Iftikhar, 2011 SCMR 1165 Naveed Vs The State, 2014 SCMR 1464 Muhammad Nadeem Waqas Vs The State, 2014 SCMR 1658

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background: The appellant challenged the judgment dated May 28, 2009, by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad, under Section 410 Cr.PC read with Section 48 of the CNSA. The trial court had convicted the appellant, sentencing him to nine years of imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 90,000, with an additional nine months of rigorous imprisonment in case of default. The appellant was apprehended on November 25, 2007, at a bus stop with a shopping bag containing five packets of heroin totaling 5 kilograms, leading to his prosecution. ----Issues: Whether the separation of only one gram of heroin from each packet for chemical analysis constitutes a violation of law. Whether the prosecution's evidence sufficiently connects the appellant to the commission of the offense. Whether the chemical examiner’s report was from a competent authority and followed proper rules. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned as follows: The appellant’s objection regarding the separation of one gram from the five packets was deemed unsubstantial. The court noted that the quantity sent for chemical analysis was reasonable and within legal parameters. The chemical examiner’s report confirmed the presence of heroin, and the authority did not object to the quantity being insufficient for analysis. The appellant failed to challenge the chemical examiner’s findings or call the examiner as a witness. The court emphasized that technicalities should not overshadow the gravity of the offense, which involves a large quantity of heroin potentially harming society. The prosecution's evidence, including the statement of witnesses and the appellant's failure to provide any mala fide intent by the police, was sufficient to maintain the conviction. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1949 Lahore 175 PLD 2004 Supreme Court 856 2007 P Cr. LJ 1984 2008 SCMR 1991 2008 YLR 2232 2006 YLR 2826 PLD 1959 (W.P) Peshawar 176

Summary: Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947---Acquittal---The witness statements did not directly implicate the appellant, except for the complainant's report. Concerns were raised about the lack of a disclosure memo and non-production of inquiry reports. The charge framed against the appellant was found defective and contradictory to the evidence. The appellant's assumption of the cashier role after the alleged incidents cast doubt on his involvement. The handwriting expert's report was not put to the appellant during his statement, violating his right to explain the evidence against him. The prosecution also failed to examine a crucial witness, weakening their case. The original vouchers and relevant records were not tendered as evidence. The court found these factors collectively casting doubt on the prosecution's case, and concluded that the conviction was not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.