Summary: The prosecution seeks corroboration from recovery of one empty of 30 bore from the spot andrecovery of pistol from the accused/respondent Faraz Hussain Shah, at the time of his arrest. Theevidence on record, however, suggests that the IO visited the spot and recovered blood stainedstones and two bullets during spot inspection through recovery memo Ex PW-10/1, while on thesame day, through a separate recovery memo Ex PW-4/1, the IO recovered one empty of 30 bore.The marginal witnesses of both the recovery memos are different and the marginal witness torecovery memos Ex PW-10/1 & Ex PW-4/1 materially contradicted the investigating officer.Moreover, the preparation of two separate recovery memos at the same spot, during the sameproceedings, does not appeal to a prudent mind and create a reasonable doubt in recovery ofempty from the spot.So far as confessional statement of the respondent-accused is concerned, record shows thatrespondent/accused Jawad Ali Shah was arrested on 14.12.2012 and remained in police custodytill 17.12.2012. the confessional statement of the respondent Jawad Ali Shah was recorded by PW-12. In her statement, PW-12 stated that accused might have been produced before her at 08:30 to08:45 AM. She gave him time to ponder over his confession and after an hour. The accused wasproduced before the Court for confessional statement by Shamraiz Khan (PW-6). He states that heproduced the accused before the Court for recording his confessional statement at 10:00 AM.When the statement of PW-6 and PW-12, is read in juxtaposition, it seems that no proper timewas given to the accused before recording his confessional statement. Moreover, after recordingconfessional statement, the respondent was again handed over to the police and the probabilitythat he was under the fear that in case he would not tender his confessional statement, he wouldbe again handed over to police, cannot be ruled out.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefitof doubt---Delayed FIR--- Dishonest improvement---Withholding best evidence--- Relatedwitness--- Chance witness--- Scope---Accused along with others were alleged to haveattacked upon the deceased, who took shelter in a shop but the accused persons being armedwith pistols entered into the shop and made firing upon the deceased---First InformationReport was lodged with a delay of about 23 hours without any plausible reason---Accusedwas nominated in the FIR but he was not assigned any role---Accused was later on assignedthe role of holding the deceased but no reliance could be placed upon such an improvedstatement---No plausible explanation was furnished as to why the shopkeeper or the personwho took the deceased to the hospital was not examined---Non-production of most naturaland material witnesses strongly led to an inference that they would not have supported theprosecution case---Prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased and werechance witnesses---Prosecution case was highly doubtful and was not proved beyondreasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Summary: Background:Saddam Hussain filed Criminal Petition No.419 of 2020 against an order passed by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Cr. M. No.225/B of 2020. The petitioner sought redressal regarding alleged misconduct and negligence by Investigating Officer Tasadduq Hussain.---Issues:Allegations of negligence and misconduct by Investigating Officer Tasadduq Hussain.Measures required to improve the quality of police work, particularly in investigation procedures, and to ensure law and order in Islamabad Capital Territory.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Islamabad assured the court that complaints against Investigating Officer Tasadduq Hussain are being addressed by the police department. The court emphasized the importance of professional training for investigation officers and ordered the preparation of a handbook on crime investigation within six months. This handbook should include practical applications, case-law, and updated annually.The IGP was directed to take measures to improve the quality of police work, maintain law and order, and ensure the safety of citizens and their properties. Negligence or misconduct by police officers should not be tolerated, and appropriate penalties should be imposed.The court stressed that protecting the life and property of citizens is a constitutional duty of the state, including police officials.The order was to be sent to IGPs of all provinces and Gilgit Baltistan for implementation.The petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition to file a fresh bail application after the police submit the final challan in the trial court. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Background:Farooq Ahmad, the petitioner, filed Jail Petition No.73/2016 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. The petitioner was convicted for rape under section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death, which was later reduced to imprisonment for life.---Issues:Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner was in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the offense, considering subsequent amendments to the law.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimony of the victim, medical evidence, and the testimony of other witnesses. It concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence, was deemed reliable.Regarding the sentence imposed, the court noted that the law at the time of the offense prescribed imprisonment for a term ranging from ten to twenty-five years under section 376(1) of the PPC. However, the High Court had sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for life. As the amendment enhancing the punishment to imprisonment for life was not applicable retrospectively, the sentence imposed by the High Court was not in accordance with the law.The court granted leave to appeal to determine the appropriate sentence under section 376(1) PPC before the amendment. The Superintendent of the Jail was directed to submit a report on the petitioner's conduct and remissions earned during his incarceration.The appeal was to be heard by a three-Member Bench of the Supreme Court within three months, with notice to the complainant and the victim, considering the petitioner's prolonged incarceration.The judgment was approved for reporting.---Precedents/Citations:The court referenced various cases to support its findings, including Muhammad Javed v State (2019 SCMR 1920), Muhammad Aslam v State (2006 SCMR 348), Shakeel v State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 47), Haji Ahmad v. State (1975 SCMR 69), and Irfan Ali Sher v. State (Jail Petition No. 324/2019). These cases helped establish the legal principles surrounding evidence requirements and sentencing in cases of rape.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: All the co-accused having similar role, particularly, co-accused Naeem Anwar have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court after extending benefit of doubt to them vide judgment dated 16.12.2019.The alleged recovery of kalashinkov from possession of the accused/petitioner after four years would be seen by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. This Court considers that accused/petitioner cannot be kept in jail when his role is at par with that of acquitted co-accused and his guilt is to be adjudged by the learned trial Court on the same evidence on the basis of which co-accused were acquitted. Since identical role ascribed to accused/petitioner by the complainant, requires further inquiry into his guilt qua commission of the offence, as envisages in subsection 2of section 497 Cr.P.C, he is entitled to be released on bail in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case. Bail allowed.

Summary: S. 12(2) word person Scope Legislature has Introduced S.12(2), CPC with a broad scope and instead of mentioning word defendant the word person has been used which gives even third party a right to challenge a decree if it is obtained by way of Fraud & Misrepresentation.

Summary: Background:The respondent, Mamoon Ahmed Malik, was employed as an Assistant (BPS-14) in the Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan, on probation.During his probationary period, he remained absent from duty from 05.09.2011 to 02.04.2012, following which his service was terminated.The respondent claimed to have filed a departmental appeal against the termination, which he purportedly sent via courier service. However, the authenticity of the courier receipt was questioned.---Issues:Whether the respondent's absence from duty justified the termination of his service.Whether the respondent's claim of filing a departmental appeal was credible.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court observed that the respondent addressed the departmental appeal directly to the Secretary, Law and Justice Division, instead of following proper channels.The authenticity of the courier receipt attached to the appeal was challenged, as it was found to be unrelated to the dispatch of the departmental appeal.The respondent's conduct amounted to deception, warranting potential disciplinary action.The argument that the respondent's absence was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) and therefore no further punishment could be imposed was deemed untenable.Previous judgments of the Court established that unauthorized absence from duty during probation could lead to termination of service.As there were no disputed facts regarding the respondent's absence, no regular inquiry was necessary.The Tribunal's judgment, which set aside the termination order and directed the respondent's reinstatement, was found legally flawed and unsustainable.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and restoring the termination of the respondent's service.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending