Summary: Background: In this case, the appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge Juvenile Court, Swabi, for robbery and murder. The prosecution's case was that on 16.07.2009, the complainant, a taxi driver, was robbed by two passengers. Upon fleeing, the accused, Bilal Ahmad, and his accomplice fired at individuals who chased them, resulting in three people being injured, one of whom, Muhammad Ali, later died. The accused was apprehended at the scene, and a firearm and the stolen money were recovered from him. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant could be held liable for the offenses under Sections 302-B, 392, and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). 2- Whether the firing by the appellant constituted qatl-e-amd (intentional murder) under Section 302-B PPC or qatl-bis-sabab (unintentional murder) under Section 321 PPC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the conviction and sentences of the appellant, dismissing the appeal. The court found that the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony of the complainant and injured witnesses, was reliable and credible. The appellant's act of firing at the pursuers, leading to the death of one individual, clearly indicated an intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Thus, the offense qualified as qatl-e-amd under Section 302-B PPC, not qatl-bis-sabab. The appellant was also rightly convicted for robbery under Sections 392 and 394 PPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 302-B, 392, 394, and 382-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)

Summary: Sec:394 PPC-Robbery(establishment)-Recovery plus circumstantial evidence, but not the mere pointation of place without evidence---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Investigating Officer had detained thecomplainant at the Police Station for about two hours, till the complainant prepared a writtenreport implicating the accused in the case, on which the F.I.R. was lodged---InvestigatingOfficer, thus, was interested in conviction of accused---Prosecution had withheld and notproduced the important witness, brother of the complainant, who had been deprived of hiscash and other valuables during the alleged incident of robbery---No recovery of any robbedarticle or weapon of offence had been effected from the accused to corroborate or support theprosecution version---Place of incident being already in the knowledge of the police,disclosure memo also did not support the prosecution case---Mere pointation of the place ofoccurrence not leading to any recovery was nothing but a futile exercise---Accused wasacquitted in circumstances.2007 YLR 924; PLD 1971 SC 541 and 2001 SCMR 1405 rel