Summary: Background:The criminal petition arises from an order by the Lahore High Court transferring the trial of a complaint filed by Muhammad Sultan against Muhammad Raza and others from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tala Gang, District Chakwal, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. The complaint alleged the extra-judicial killing of Sultan's son by the respondents, who are police officials. The trial court had taken cognizance of the offense and issued process against the respondents. However, the respondents moved an application before the Lahore High Court to transfer the trial to a court in Lahore, which was allowed by a Single Bench of the High Court.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial from Tala Gang to Lahore was legal and sustainable.Whether the jurisdiction and venue of the trial were appropriately determined.Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects its credibility or legality.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial to Lahore. It noted that the offense, the alleged murder of Sultan's son, occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Defence-B, Lahore, where a case had been registered and post-mortem examination conducted. Additionally, the witnesses were residents of Lahore. The Court invoked Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for trial in the district where the offense was committed or where its consequences ensued. Given that the alleged murder took place in Lahore, the High Court's decision to transfer the trial there was deemed appropriate. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for expedited proceedings and directing the trial court to decide the case within three months. It also ordered adequate security for Sultan during the trial.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Sections 302, 364, 109, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)Section 156 of the Police Order 2002Chapter XV Part VI of the Criminal Procedure Code"Muhammad Sultan vs. Sabir Hussain and 14 others" - Lahore High Court, Lahore

Summary: Saqib Ali was convicted and sentenced for offenses under sections 302(b) and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) related to the abduction and murder of Muhammad Hashir. The judgment ultimately concluded that the prosecution evidence is full of doubts and that there are circumstances creating reasonable doubt about the guilt of Saqib Ali. As a result, the court accepted Saqib Ali's appeal, sets aside his conviction and sentence, and acquits him of the charges under Sections 302(b) and 364-A of the PPC, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The court also dismissed the criminal revision filed by Muhammad Azam Butt for the enhancement of Saqib Ali's sentence.

Summary: Background:Najam-ul-Hassan alias Irshad (Petitioner/Accused) filed a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.02/2020, registered under Sections 364-A, 377, and 511 PPC at Police Station Sikandarabad, District Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner were that he committed sodomy with Qamar Abbas, a 14-year-old boy, on 10-01-2020. The complaint was lodged by the victim's brother, Arfan Hussain, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner's initial bail request was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagar on 03-03-2020.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the absence of a Medico Legal Report and the lack of recovery of a pistol from the petitioner warrant further inquiry into the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR, with the complainant himself witnessing the occurrence. The victim's statement corroborated the FIR.The court noted that the offense under Section 377 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, which generally precludes bail.The court found that the Medico Legal Report, which noted abrasive wounds on the victim, provided prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense.The court rejected the petitioner's argument of false implication due to prior civil litigation between the families, finding no evidence of enmity that could lead to such a false accusation.The court emphasized the moral turpitude of the offense and deemed the petitioner undeserving of bail under discretionary powers.---Citations/Precedents:The decision relied on principles regarding the prohibitory clause under Section 497 Cr.P.C and the discretionary powers of the court in granting bail for offenses of moral turpitude. Specific case laws or precedents were not mentioned in the judgment.

Summary: Dismissed --- This legal case involved a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging by an Anti-Terrorism Court in Bahawalpur. The court had transferred a case related to the murder of Muhammad Imran, involving mutilation of the body using acid, from its jurisdiction to an ordinary court. The petitioner contends that the case falls under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically Section 336-B PPC, making it triable by a Special Court. The court, however, determined that the use of acid, as per the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, only applies to cases of causing hurt through corrosive substances and not to cases of death caused by the same means. The judgment emphasized the definition of "hurt" in the context of the law and concludes that since the death of Muhammad Imran is a homicidal death, the case falls under the jurisdiction of an ordinary criminal court rather than an Anti-Terrorism Court. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of lacking merit. --- The Impugned Order transferred the case arising from FIR No.211/2018 dated 05.05.2018, registered under sections 302, 364, 148 & 149 PPC at Police Station City Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan, to the court of ordinary jurisdiction.The facts leading to the petition involved the death of Imran, with the complainant, Parveen Bibi, asserting that her son was tortured, mutilated with acid, and killed. The Anti-Terrorism Court transferred the case to ordinary jurisdiction, stating that the offense under section 336-B PPC did not attract its jurisdiction.The petitioner argued that the crime report clearly mentioned acid-induced mutilation of the dead body, falling within the scope of the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner contended that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case without recording prosecution evidence, and the Impugned Order was contrary to judicial and statutory directions.The government's representatives argued that the case did not fall under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as the crime report suggested that acid was thrown on the deceased after death to conceal identity. They maintained that the case was of homicidal death, not causing hurt, and therefore, the ordinary jurisdiction was appropriate.The court examined the relevant legal provisions, including the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and concluded that the case did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court was limited to scheduled offenses, and the nature of the accusation determined the court's jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Impugned Order as legally sound.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365-B, 346 & 34---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage,wrongful confinement in secret, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---Unnatural conduct of victim---Scope---Complainant alleged that his sister aged13/14 years went out of the house and did not come back---Complainant was, however,informed by the witness that his sister was found by him near the forest---Alleged abducteewas not abducted in the presence of witnesses thus, their testimony was not helpful to thecase---Alleged abductee, inter alia, stated before the court that she was coming from thehouse of her sister at night; that due to fear she did not come to her house and voluntarilyaccompanied accused to his flat, where she was subjected to zina, while his friend (coaccused) kissed her; that the flat of accused consisted of one room and it had no attachedbathroom; that she remained with the accused for one month and seven days and that whenshe missed her mother, she left the flat of the accused and went towards her house---Allegedabductee admitted during cross-examination that accused used to lock the flat from outsideand that during her retention in the flat she neither knocked the door loudly nor made anyhue and cry---Investigating officer brought on record that the accused used to take thealleged abductee on the roof of the building for nature's call---Admission of the allegedabductee clearly established that she was never abducted---Building in which the allegedabductee was confined had other inhabitants and she was taken out of the flat on daily basisbut even then she never tried to escape or call the inhabitants for her rescue---Unnaturalconduct of the alleged abductee created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Medicalevidence though established defloration and non-existence of hymen of alleged victim butdid not confirm that the accused committed zina with her---Medical evidence furtherestablished that at the time of commission of offence alleged abductee had attained puberty---Report of the swab sent to the Forensic Laboratory was not collected---Prosecution hadfailed to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accepted, incircumstances.Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 365-B---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc---Scope---Prosecution, in order to establish the offence of abduction punishable under S. 365-B, P.P.C. has to establish the removal of a woman by force from one place to another undercompulsion or through inducement by deceitful means and the object of such removal is tocompel her to marry any person against her will or in order to force or seduce her to illicitintercourse.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 342 & 364(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Certificate on statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., non-availability of---Defence hadalleged that certificate of statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was not given under own hand of theTrial Court and only typed written statement was signed, thus provision of S. 364(2), Cr.P.C.were not complied with, which vitiated the trial---Validity---Record showed that at the end of thestatement of accused, certificate signed by the Trial Court showed that statement was recorded inpresence and hearing of the court, therefore, provision of S.364(2), Cr.P.C. had been compliedwith---Mere fact that such certificate was typed and signed by the Trial Court would not vitiatethe trial as it would neither prejudice the accused nor affected the case of prosecution.PLD 2005 Kar. 177 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular accountsupported by medical evidence---Allegation against the accused was that he stabbed the deceasedwith dagger and injured him who succumbed to the injuries---Ocular account was furnished bytwo witnesses---Eye-witnesses had narrated that there was exchange of hot words between theaccused and deceased, who were relieved---Accused in rage went to his shop and brought a knifeand hit on the left thigh of the deceased, as a result of grievous injury, deceased fell down andbecame unconscious---Said witness with the help of inhabitants of the area had taken thedeceased to hospital but he succumbed to the injury on way---Other eye-witness supported theversion of the witness, who narrated the ocular account---Defence objected that said witnesseswere chance witnesses and failed to justify their presence at the spot---Incident took place atpublic place, therefore, attraction of inhabitants of the area could not be termed by chance---Admittedly, murder was not committed with previous notice to the witnesses for their presence---Evidence of said witnesses could not be rejected on the ground that they were partisanwitnesses, however their evidence had to be carefully scrutinized---Both the said witnessesremained consistent on all material particulars of the prosecution case; their testimony wascorroborated by the post-mortem report of the deceased, which was consistent with the ocular account as to the weapon, locale of injury and the time of occurrence---Veracity and credibilityof said witnesses had been tested through lengthy cross-examination, but nothing came on recordto discredit their evidence or their testimony in any manner---Post-mortem report of the deceasedshowed that deceased had received single stab incised wound on the left thigh---Wound wasdeep and femoral artery was found cut in two halves---Death of deceased was homicidal innature and was caused by means of sharp weapon, which damaged vital blood vessels---Circumstances established that medical evidence had fully supported the ocular accountfurnished by witnesses---Conviction of accused was maintained and sentence of death wasaltered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.Muhamams Ashraf and another v. The State PLD 1977 SC 538 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Non-mentioning the name of witnessesin FIR---Effect---Names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR but their statementsunder S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded soon after the incident---No motive or enmity for falseimplication of the accused had been attributed to the said eye witnesses---Circumstancesestablished that said persons were natural witnesses and they had brought the true facts of theincident---Evidence of said witnesses could not be discarded merely on the ground that theirnames were not mentioned in FIR---Occurrence took place at public place when the complainantarrived at the place of incident, there was crowd of people and it was not proper for complainantto mention the names of said eye-witnesses in the FIR, which was an omission and would notdiscredit the testimony of eye-witnesses---Conviction of accused was maintained and sentence ofdeath was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State PLD 2001 SC 107 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence reduction in---Mitigatingcircumstances---No background of previous enmity or deep rooted hostility existed between theaccused and deceased---Evidence of eye-witnesses revealed that the act of inflicting single knifeblow by accused at deceased was preceded by a dialogue between accused and complainantfollowed by scuffle---Accused inflicted only single blow of knife and did not repeat---Prosecution case was silent with regard to motive---Such factors cumulatively made out a casefor mitigation of sentence---Accused was awarded death sentence for murder, which wasundoubtedly a normal penalty for the offence, but benefit could be extended in presence ofmitigating circumstances---Conviction was maintained, death sentence of accused was altered toimprisonment for life, in circumstances.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364, 365 & 34; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 374 & 544-A Conviction on circumstantial evidence---Legal standard---Principles applicable---Case built entirely on circumstantial evidence---Held, each incriminating circumstance must be established through reliable and clinching evidence and must form an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt---In the present case, multiple gaps existed in the chain of evidence---Supreme Court precedent requires that in circumstantial cases, no link should be missing, and guilt must be proven beyond doubt---Prosecution's case based on last seen evidence, recovery, and extra-judicial confession of co-accused was disbelieved---Conviction and sentence of death set aside on benefit of doubt. Cited cases: PLD 2021 SC 600; 2015 SCMR 155; 2017 SCMR 986; 2021 SCMR 736 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 43 Confession of co-accused---Admissibility and evidentiary value---Confession made by co-accused (since acquitted) before private witnesses not relied upon by trial court and not proved during trial---Held, confession of co-accused cannot be considered as evidence against another accused unless proved and can at most be treated as circumstantial evidence---Confession unproved and thus inadmissible against appellant. Cited case: Khalid Javed v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 40 Recovery during police custody---Admissibility of information leading to discovery---Pre-knowledge of fact---Held, recovery of pistol, motorcycle, and cash under Article 40 was inadmissible as the location of the crime and identity of the accused were already known to police---No new fact discovered through accused’s information---No corroborative value. Cited case: Hayatullah v. The State 2018 SCMR 2092 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 103 Illegal recovery---Violation of mandatory procedure---Recovery of articles without associating independent witnesses of locality---Held, recoveries made in violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible---Evidence obtained in breach of statutory provisions is hit by exclusionary rule---Recovery from appellant disregarded. Cited case: Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 (e) Evidence---Last seen theory---Principles and application Last seen together---Gap in time and space between last seen and recovery of dead body---Witnesses’ credibility---Held, prosecution failed to establish proximity in time and space between deceased and appellant---Testimonies of last seen witnesses found unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and lack of corroboration from CCTV or other sources---Last seen evidence held weak and insufficient to support conviction. Cited cases: PLD 2018 SC 813; 2019 SCMR 1220; 2012 SCMR 419; 2018 SCMR 772; 2019 SCMR 631 (f) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 151 Impeaching credibility---Material improvements and contradictions by prosecution witnesses---Witnesses confronted with previous statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.---Held, witnesses made substantial improvements amounting to dishonesty, thus impeaching their own credit---Evidence disbelieved for lacking truthfulness and reliability. (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Medical evidence Scope and limitations---Held, medical evidence confirms nature and cause of death but cannot identify assailant---Cannot serve as corroborative evidence in circumstantial case---Insufficient to sustain conviction when other evidence is disbelieved. Cited cases: PLD 2021 SC 600; 2017 SCMR 986 (h) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Right of accused Held, benefit of doubt arises not as concession but as a right---Even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal---Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence set aside accordingly. Cited cases: Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Imran alias Dully v. The State 2015 SCMR 155; Fiaz Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 2026 Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 447-J of 2023 allowed; conviction and sentence of appellant set aside. Murder Reference No. 18 of 2023 answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed. Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involves the alleged abduction and murder of Muhammad Ismail and injuries inflicted on Niaz Muhammad. The incident reportedly occurred on January 5, 2009, when the complainant and his companions were allegedly ambushed by the accused while on their way to settle a dispute. The complainant claimed that the accused abducted Muhammad Ismail, who was later found dead, and assaulted Niaz Muhammad. The accused were charged with offenses under Sections 364, 302, 337-H(ii), 337-F(i), 506(2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), as well as Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to this appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and recording the witnesses' statements undermined the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's eyewitness accounts affected the credibility of the prosecution. 3- Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence presented by the prosecution. 4- Whether the acquittal of the accused by the trial court was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Delay in Lodging FIR and Recording Witness Statements: The court found that the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the incident, and the statements of the witnesses were recorded with a further delay of 12 days. The court noted that such delays, especially in the context of previous hostility between the parties, raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's case. The court cited several precedents emphasizing that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and recording witness statements could be fatal to the prosecution's case. Inconsistencies Between Medical and Eyewitness Evidence: The court observed that there were significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts. For instance, the timeline of the injuries sustained by the deceased did not align with the prosecution's narrative. The court also noted that there was no medical evidence to substantiate the injuries claimed by Niaz Muhammad. These inconsistencies, along with other contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies, further weakened the prosecution's case. Evaluation of Evidence: The court found that the prosecution's evidence was marred by material contradictions and deliberate improvements made by the witnesses during the trial. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence to support its claims, and the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused based on the lack of credible evidence. Justification of Acquittal: The court reiterated that in an appeal against an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the prosecution bears a heavy burden to overturn such a judgment. The court concluded that the trial court's judgment was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by the evidence. As such, the acquittal was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: AKHTAR ALI AND OTHERS V. THE STATE (2008 SCMR 6): Importance of addressing delays in lodging FIR and recording witness statements. AYUB MASIH VS. THE STATE [PLD 2002 SC 1038]: Significance of unexplained delays in FIRs. MUHAMMAD ASIF VS. THE STATE [2017 SCMR 486]: The impact of delayed witness statements. GHULAM NABI VERSUS IKRAM ALIAS KAMA AND OTHERS (2020 SCMR 477): The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in appeals against acquittals. HAJI PAIO KHAN VERSUS SHER BIAZ AND OTHERS (2009 SCMR 803): The standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal. Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The judgment emphasized the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases and reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused in the face of material discrepancies and unexplained delays.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl in 2006. The tragic incident occurred when the young girl was lured away from her home under the pretense of receiving a toy. She was then brutally raped and strangled to death. The appellant was sentenced to death on three counts: kidnapping (Section 364-A), rape (Section 376), and murder (Section 302(b)) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence, leading to this appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the confessional statement made by the appellant was voluntary, true, and sufficient to support the conviction. 3- Whether the identification parade was properly conducted and if it corroborated the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The court affirmed that the prosecution effectively proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the postmortem report, and the confessional statement, formed a coherent and convincing chain that substantiated the charges against the appellant. --Confessional Statement: The court found that the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was both voluntary and truthful. This confession was corroborated by the forensic evidence, making it a strong basis for conviction. The court emphasized that a voluntary and true confession is, by itself, sufficient to sustain a conviction. --Identification Parade: The court concluded that the identification parade was conducted correctly, with the appellant being properly identified by witnesses as the individual last seen with the victim before her death. This identification further reinforced the prosecution's case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and death sentence were upheld. The criminal murder reference was answered in the affirmative, confirming the death sentence. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Qadir and others Vs. The State (2007 SCMR 782) - The principle that a voluntary and true confession is sufficient for conviction was cited and applied by the court.

Summary: Background: The appellants, Suhbat Khan, Amjid, and Jehanzada, were convicted for the murder of Haroon Ahmed, whose body was discovered on May 19, 2011. Haroon Ahmed went missing on May 16, 2011, and his body was later found in a canal in Dargai. The appellants were arrested and charged under sections 302, 364, 34, 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed fines, in addition to other charges. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the appellants. ---2) Whether the delay in reporting the missing person undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. ---3) Whether the medical evidence corroborated the confessional statements and other circumstantial evidence. ---4) Whether the recoveries of the stolen vehicle parts and the mobile phone of the deceased were sufficient to link the appellants to the crime. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court overturned the trial court's conviction and acquitted the appellants based on several key points: The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The confessional statement of Amjid did not align with the medical evidence. No ligature marks were found on the deceased, which contradicted the claim of strangulation in the confession. The medical report did not conclusively determine the cause of death, and no post-mortem was conducted to confirm the nature of the injuries. The delay of 27 days in reporting the missing person and the absence of a plausible explanation for this delay weakened the prosecution's case. The recoveries of the vehicle parts and the mobile phone were deemed insufficient as the items had no unique identifying marks and were commonly available in the market. As a result, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered their release. --- Citations/Precedents: Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274) Qaiser Ali v. The State (2016 SD 560) State through the Advocate General N.W.F.P Peshawar v. Shahjehan (PLD 2003 SC 70) Muhammad Abrar v. The State (2014 YLR 537) Muhammad Mukhtiar alias Moju v. The State (2010 PCr. LJ 1750) Ali Khan v. The State (1999 SCMR 955) MD. Nazir Hussain Sarkar and another (1969 SCMR 388)