Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 202 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337, 338 & 339---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform, common intention---Pardon to the accused---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant---Widow of the deceased was also implicated in the case as one of the accused---Prosecution’s request qua producing widow of deceased/accused as a prosecution witness in the trial was allowed---Validity---Provision of S.337, Cr.P.C., described that the Court could tender pardon to the accused at any stage of the trial before the judgment was passed with a purpose of obtaining evidence and in the present case it had been done by the Trial Court---However, it was essential that accused/widow of deceased should have expressed her free consent and willingness to become approver in response to a request made by the complainant/ prosecution or by the Court itself, however, the impugned order was completely silent about the factum that whether widow of deceased (accused facing trial) had ever been given an option to exercise her discretion to become an approver and thereby agreed to record her statement with her free will and consent against her other principal and co-accused---In absence whereof, the requirement of the relevant Sections of law could not be considered to have been duly and legally fulfilled---In the present case, the complainant/son/legal heir of the deceased made request for production of widow of deceased/accused as prosecution witness through the Prosecutor coupled with the factum that she had been charged only under Ss.201/202, P.P.C, therefore, the bar contained in Ss.337 & 338, P.P.C., that no person shall be tendered pardon who was involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl without permission of the victim or, as the case may be, of the heirs of the victim, did not apply to the present case---However, admittedly before the Trial Court neither any application by the accused facing trial qua grant of pardon containing an undertaking that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of deceased was moved nor her consent in black and white floated upon the surface of the available record to show that she voluntarily opted to become an accomplice/approver against her co-accused (including petitioner herein) nor any Section of law could be quoted by the Trial Court in the impugned order under which accused facing trial was allowed to be produced as a prosecution witness because in case she was granted/tendered pardon, the same must be preceded by a condition that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of the deceased and in case she failed to do so, she had to bear legal consequences thereof in light of S.339, Cr.P.C., etc.---Moreover, by virtue of Art.13 of the Constitution, an accused person could not be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself---Criminal revision petition was allowed, accordingly. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 Sc 53 rel. Malik Haider Ali for Petitioner. Sardar Basharat Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State. Aqeel-ur-Rehman Khan Jadoon for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.

Summary: Testimony of a child witness and its admissibility after conducting vior dire; Explanation of Locard's Principle of Exchange and importance of Deoxyribonucleic Asset ("DNA"); Effects of non-submission of buccal swabs of suspect with the PFSA for subsequent DNA comparison with the samples of the victim/deceased as well as non-conducting of DNA comparison of the crime weapon with buccal swabs of the victim/deceased to connect the same with the crime;(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(ii)---Qatl-e-amd---Injured eyewitness---Death sentence converted to imprisonment for life---Ocular account of incident was corroborated by medical evidence and remained unimpeached despite cross-examination---Injured child witness (PW-10) passed rationality test under Art. 3 & 17 of QSO, and competently deposed regarding murder of his mother by the accused---Prosecution proved its case beyond shadow of doubt---However, omission by investigating agency to submit buccal swabs of accused for DNA comparison and failure to link murder weapon with victim through DNA were considered extenuating circumstances warranting lesser sentence---Held, even a single mitigating circumstance suffices to justify conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment---Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence; Murder Reference answered in negative.----Cited Cases:• Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582• Ali Taj v. The State 2023 SCMR 900• Ansar v. The State 2023 SCMR 929• Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831• Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795• Muhammad Ijaz v. The State 2023 SCMR 1375(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 374---Death sentence---Confirmation reference---Scope---Where mitigating circumstances exist, including forensic lapses, the court may refrain from confirming death sentence---Failure of police to connect accused with scene of crime through DNA or properly explain discrepancy regarding firearm evidence undermined completeness of prosecution’s case for capital punishment---Held, conviction maintained but sentence modified to life imprisonment---Reference for confirmation of death sentence declined.(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984):----Arts. 3 & 17---Competency of child witness---Voir dire---Rationality test---Eight-year-old injured child witness found competent based on trial court’s questioning---Held, testimony of child witness found natural, consistent, and independently corroborated by complainant and another eyewitness---Such testimony can form valid basis for conviction when found trustworthy.----Cited Case:• Raja Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146**(d) Evidence---Ocular versus medical evidence---Discrepancy in injury count---Effect---Minor inconsistencies in number or location of injuries not fatal to prosecution case when ocular testimony is credible and corroborated---Medical evidence held to be corroborative, not conclusive, and cannot override trustworthy eyewitness account.----Cited Cases:• Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460• Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396• Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025**(e) Criminal trial---Prompt FIR---Presumption of truthfulness---Occurrence reported within 90 minutes of incident---Held, promptness in lodging FIR supports presence of complainant and injured witness at the scene, rules out fabrication or mistaken identity.----Cited Cases:• Shaheen Ijaz v. The State 2021 SCMR 500• Sheraz Asghar v. The State 1995 SCMR 1365• Zar Bahadur v. The State 1978 SCMR 136**(f) Forensic science---DNA evidence---Locard’s Principle of Exchange---Failure to collect or submit buccal swabs of accused for DNA matching with samples from crime scene---Held, such omission did not exonerate accused but constituted a mitigating factor affecting quantum of sentence---Court emphasized future need for rigorous adherence to forensic procedures by police and investigation teams.----Directive:Investigating agencies directed to ensure proper documentation, collection, and preservation of forensic evidence from crime scenes and suspects to strengthen judicial process.----Cited Reference:• Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• District Attorney’s Office v. William Osborne 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4536----Disposition:Appeal dismissed to extent of conviction but allowed to extent of sentence; Death sentence converted to life imprisonment. Murder Reference answered in negative.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 15, 199, and Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 Right to freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Due process—Requirement of Federal Government’s approval The Petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Passport Control List (PCL) under Article 199 of the Constitution, contending that the restriction was arbitrary, unlawful, and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner was accused in FIR No. 96/23 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. However, his pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn after the investigating officer found him not guilty. Despite this, his name remained on the PCL based on the recommendation of the Home Department, Punjab, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing. Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, requires approval from the Federal Government for placing an individual on the PCL, which was absent in the present case. The court held that such a restriction, in the absence of lawful authority and procedural fairness, violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free movement subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Therefore, the placement of the Petitioner’s name on the PCL was declared illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. Cited Cases: Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PCrLJ 1569 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1020 Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 YLR 2616 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore 119 ----- Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to remove Petitioner’s name from PCL, as its inclusion was found to be unjustified, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Case of free fight---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Investigating Officer during spot inspection collected an empty, a live cartridge and a misfired cartridge of 222 bore; similarly an empty, a live cartridge and a misfired cartridge of .30 bore; along with an empty of 12 bore, but he could not collect more empties from the spot since, as many as 11 accused were charged---Had all the accused fired, then the Investigating Officer would have collected many empties from the spot and the deceased as well as the injured would have received multiple firearm injuries---Apart from the empties, live and misfired cartridges were collected from the spot, so the same indicated that both the parties entered into a free fight followed by the firing---Parties assaulted each other, but the witnesses remained silent on that particular aspect of the case---When the Investigating Officer put his appearance before the Court, he confirmed that during spot inspection, he noticed the marks of struggle and this confirmation had confirmed free fight between the parties---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon--- Appreciation of evidence---Injured not produced for evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Prosecution got examined only two witnesses out of the injured, but interestingly the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the injuries caused to all the injured whether examined or not examined---Trial Court committed an illegality while convicting the appellants for the injuries caused to the injured who did not appear before the Trial Court and that by doing so, the appellants had not been treated in accordance with law---As the injuries of the injured were attributed to specific accused, so under those circumstances the Trial Court should have dealt with the matter in accordance with the allegations levelled and in accordance with the role played by each accused---Once an injured witness did not appear before the Trial Court in support of his claim, then no conviction could be awarded for the injury caused to him---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon ---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Motive was allegedly an earlier quarrel between the parties, when the crop of the complainant party was damaged---So this Court had to see that what interest all the accused had in the property and in whose ownership the property was---As nothing was brought on record by the witnesses to substantiate their claim of the property, and as the Investigating Officer could not collect revenue record in that respect, so the High Court was inclined to hold that the complainant could not succeed in proving his property on the spot and once it got established that they had no property near or at the place of occurrence, then the participation of all the accused and the visit of the complainant on his property did not appeal to a prudent mind---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State 2024 SCMR 1449 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of complainant and site plan ---Confliction---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Site plan was prepared on the pointation of a witness but astonishingly the said witness was not produced, so the evidentiary value of that witness had lost its utility---Admittedly, the complainant in his report charged the accused for indiscriminate firing and no specific role was given---In the site plan every accused was charged for a specific injury caused and every accused was shown duly armed---So when the site plan, that too, verified from the complainant was juxtaposed with the report of the complainant, no ambiguity was left that they were in conflict---Once the complainant verified the prepared site plan, he admitted the same as correct, so the conflict between the site plan and the report questioned the integrity and reliability of such witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness---Adverse inference---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Though, the site plan was prepared on the pointation of one "S", but he was not produced---In order to appreciate as to whether said witness was present when the incident occurred and that he was available on the spot when the Investigating Officer arrived, one of the recovery witnesses appeared and explained that he along with witness "S" and one "A" reached to the spot after the occurrence; and on reaching to the spot, the Investigating Officer was present---Said witness did not support the presence of witness "S" on the spot at the time of occurrence and he even did not confirm that the site plan was prepared on the pointation of that witness---On one hand, witness "S" was abandoned, whereas on the other the witness did not support his presence on the spot, so this particular aspect of the case had damaged the prosecution case beyond repair---Prosecution had the choice to produce the witnesses it liked, but at the same time when the best available witness was withheld, then an inference could be drawn that the witness, if produced, would not support the case---On one hand witness "S" was the most important witness, whereas on the other, as many as 03 injured witnesses were not produced---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146; Malik Aamir Sultan and 2 others v. The State and another 2018 MLD 1635 and Rajmeer Khan and another v. Noor-ul-Haq and others 2019 SCMR 1949 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Counter version---Real facts of occurrence suppressed---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Record showed that one of the accused persons was injured then died---Moot question for determination was that how the deceased received the firearm injury and at whose hands---Counter version in the shape of Daily Diaryhad removed the ambiguity, as it was the deceased then injured who reported the matter and for the injury caused to him, two accused i.e., the deceased and the acquitted accused were charged---Site plan depicted that the deceased accused was present at point No. 11 and from his place, the Investigating Officer also collected blood stained earth---As accused received a firearm injury in the same episode, so he was hurriedly shifted to the hospital where he reported the matter---Said accused/ deceased was present on the spot at the stated time and received a firearm injury in the same transaction---In the site plan, the injury caused to the deceased was attributed to the deceased accused, likewise the injuries to deceased were attributed to the absconding co-accused, so the approach of the Trial Court qua involvement of the appellants was based on misreading of evidence---Report of the deceased/accused had clarified the circumstances and it told that both the parties concealed material facts---Court was confident in holding that the real facts had been suppressed--- When the place of occurrence was the same, when people died from both the sides and when the motive was common to the parties, then the counter version could be and should have been taken into consideration---Moreover, it was the uncertainty of events which led to the tragic incident and it was the concealment of facts which overshadowed the prosecution case, so if the accused could earn benefit of the same in Daily Diary, then the same benefit should have been extended to the appellants charged in the instant case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(iii), 337- F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence ---Medical evidence in conflict with the ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Record showed that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account, as 11 accused were charged in the tragic incident, but the number of injuries did commensurate with the number of accused so the conflict between the two had created dents in the case of the prosecution---Medical evidence was confirmatory in nature, but once the witnesses failed to convince, then the conflict between the two could be considered to the benefit of the accused, and the present case was no exception---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 rel. Muhammad Noman Khan Lodhi for Appellants. Niaz Muhammad, AAG for the State. Muhammad Saeed Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 16th January, 2025. Sahibzada Asadullah, J .--- Through this single judgment, this court is intending to decide the instant appeal as well as connected Cr.R No. 291-P/2023 titled "Bacha Rehman v. Aurangzeb etc." as both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Swabi delivered in case FIR No. 376 dated 29.04.2021 under sections 302/324/148/149/337-F(iii)/337-F(iv), 337-F(v). 337-A(iii) P.P.C, 15-AA KPK at Police Station Kalu Khan, District Swabi, whereby the appellants Aurangzeb son of Said Qamash and Asim son of Raham Zeb were convicted and sentenced as under:

Summary: (a) Criminal Law—Appeal against Acquittal ----Standard of interference; double presumption of innocence— Acquittal can be set aside only on showing perversity, arbitrariness, misreading/non-reading of material evidence, or disregard of settled legal principles; mere possibility of a different view on re-appraisal is insufficient—Once the Trial Court and the High Court have acquitted, a double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused. Cited Cases: Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram & another 2014 SCR 351; Muhammad Afzal v. Mst. Riaz Begum & others 2004 SCR 140; Muhammad Sadiq v. Raja Muhammad Nasim & others 1996 SCR 215; Ghulam Sikandar & another v. Mamaraz Khan & others PLD 1985 SC 11. (b) Evidence—Contradictions inter se FIR/§161, Cr.P.C. statements and ocular testimony—Effect ----Ss. 161, 173, 242 & 342, Cr.P.C. Material inconsistencies in complainant’s versions (absence from scene in written report/§161 statement versus presence and attempted assault in testimony; who took the injured to hospital; omission of alleged Rs. 18,000 theft later replaced by a fodder allegation) rendered the prosecution narrative unsafe—benefit of doubt warranted. (c) Medical evidence—Weight and reconciliation with ocular account ----Injury description; credibility of witness Victim’s claim of “22 stitches” contradicted by medical officer noting only “1–2 stitches”; assertion of eight-day unconsciousness incompatible with a §161, Cr.P.C. statement recorded on the third day—material infirmities undermined reliability; conviction could not rest upon such discrepant evidence. (d) Criminal Jurisprudence—Benefit of doubt—“Golden rule” Even a single reasonable doubt must go to the accused as of right, not concession; where multiple doubts arise, acquittal must follow. Cited Cases: Tasawar Husain v. The State & others 2016 SCR 373; Abid Hanif v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983. (e) Penal Code (AJ&K) ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 341 & 34—Proof of specific role Mere occurrence and presence are insufficient; prosecution must establish each accused’s specific role through clear, confidence-inspiring evidence—standard not met; acquittals sustained. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 07.02.2024 affirming acquittals maintained. Approved for reporting.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) in Cr.A. No. 33-M of 2013). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-D---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Attempt to qatl-i-amd and jaifah---Reappraisal of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Determination of injuries---Appellant/injured complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of respondent/accused by High Court setting aside his conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court---Validity---Respondent was single accused and had caused multiple injuries on the vital part of appellant/injured complainant, which were supported by medical evidence and also corroborated by recovery of dagger, coupled with reports of Chemical Examiner which were positive---There were sufficient evidences in shape of statement of injured witness and other supporting evidence---There was nothing on record in shape of statement of any surgeon or Radiologist which could indicate that injury extended into body cavity of injured where vital organ laid---Supreme Court set aside conviction under section 337-D, P.P.C., but maintained the ones under section 324 P.P.C. and under Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by Trial Court---Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to respondent/accused to sentence already undergone---Appeal was allowed. Iltaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (video link Peshawar). Abdul Fayyaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (video link Peshawar along with Petitioner in person). Date of hearing: 7th October, 2024.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law---- ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 147, 148, 149----Attempt to commit murder, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Shajjah-i-Ghayr Mudihah, rioting, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Appreciation of evidence---Appellant was convicted by the trial court for causing injuries to the complainant and sentenced under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code---Held, that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and delay in lodging the FIR---Unexplained delay of 10 hours in registering FIR when the police station was only 1.5 km from the place of incident was fatal for the prosecution case---Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, failed to provide a consistent account, and their statements were riddled with contradictions---Acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence strengthened the appellant’s case under the rule of consistency---Injuries sustained by the complainant alone did not stamp the witnesses as truthful in the absence of corroborating evidence---Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted of all charges. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---- ----S. 342---Examination of accused---Failure to produce defense evidence---Legal implications---Appellant denied the allegations when examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., and did not record a statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., or produce any defense witnesses---Held, that the burden remained on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do---Mere failure to lead defense evidence does not absolve the prosecution from establishing guilt. (c) Delay in FIR---- ----Effect on prosecution case---FIR was lodged with a delay of 10 hours without a plausible explanation despite the police station being only 1.5 km away from the crime scene---Such delay indicated the possibility of deliberation and false implication of the accused---Reliance placed on Shaukat Hussain v. The State (2024 SCMR 929), where an unexplained delay of 4 hours in lodging FIR was held to be fatal for the prosecution case. (d) Contradictions in Medical and Ocular Evidence---- ----Statements of prosecution witnesses were not corroborated by medical evidence---Doctor's testimony revealed that only one injured person's clothes were bloodstained, whereas police produced bloodstained clothes of both injured persons, creating doubt about the prosecution’s version---Injured witness claimed unconsciousness at the time of the incident, but the medical report stated that both injured persons were conscious at the time of examination---Held, that such inconsistencies rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable---Reliance placed on Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486). (e) Eyewitness Testimony---- ----Reliability---Presence of eyewitness at the crime scene remained doubtful as he failed to justify his presence at the time of occurrence and did not take the injured to the hospital or lodge an immediate FIR---Discrepancies between medical reports and his version further weakened his testimony---Reliance placed on Mst. Rukhsana Begum v. Sajid (2017 SCMR 596), which held that an eyewitness must establish his presence through credible evidence. (f) Withholding of Material Witnesses---- ----Prosecution failed to produce an eyewitness without justification, leading to an adverse presumption against the prosecution---Reliance placed on Shaukat Hussain v. The State (2024 SCMR 929). (g) Disposition: Criminal appeal allowed---Impugned judgment dated 26.07.2024 set aside---Appellant acquitted of all charges under FIR No. 210 of 2022 and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(v), 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in connection with FIR No. 31/22, registered at Police Station Jarwar, District Ghotki. The complainant alleged that on 16 July 2022, the petitioners, along with co-accused, ambushed the complainant's relatives, resulting in the death of one Gul Hassan and serious injuries to another individual. The petitioners claimed an alibi, asserting they were in Karachi at the time of the incident. Based on available evidence, including call data records and CCTV footage, the petitioners were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, indicating insufficient evidence against them. However, after judicial review, the case proceeded against all accused, including the petitioners, leading to their petition for pre-arrest bail. -----Issues: 1- Was the petitioners’ alibi, supported by evidence, sufficient to justify their pre-arrest bail under the law? ----2- Did the police act with malafide intent in seeking the petitioners' arrest, despite their inclusion in Column No. 2 of the challan? ----3- Did the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail based on the principle of further inquiry? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court found that the petitioners presented a credible alibi, supported by call data records, CCTV footage, and other evidence, showing they were in Karachi at the time of the alleged crime. Furthermore, the police had placed the petitioners in Column No. 2 of the challan due to insufficient evidence, and the trial court had already commenced proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioners faced the threat of arrest for no justifiable reason and that the trial would determine their guilt or innocence. Since the investigation was complete, and no further inquiry was required regarding the petitioners, their continued harassment would be unjustified. The case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and pre-arrest bail could not be withheld as mere punishment. The Court referenced several precedents where bail was granted in similar circumstances. -----Citations/Precedents: Salman Mushtaq v. The State, 2024 SCMR 14 Ahtisham Ali v. The State, 2023 SCMR 975 Fahad Hussain v. The State, 2023 SCMR 364 Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State, 2020 SCMR 249 Muhammad Sadiq v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1394 Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique, PLD 2009 SC 427

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 394, 397, 337-F(ii) & 34—Robbery and hurt—Scope of prohibitory clause Offences alleged against the applicant carried maximum punishments of four, seven, and three years respectively and thus did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Bail to be considered liberally in such circumstances unless exceptional factors exist. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S.497(2)—Bail—Further inquiry—Delayed identification parade—Absence of recovery Applicant arrested on 14.05.2023 but shown arrested in the case on 15.05.2023—Identification parade held after ten days, without explanation for delay—Such belated parade held unreliable and lost evidentiary value—No recovery of robbed cash, articles, or phone from applicant—Allegation of using robbed SIM card unsupported by seizure of phone or connecting material—Case found fit for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail granted accordingly. Irfan v. State 2018 YLR 85 and Muhammad Idrees v. State 2023 MLD 1972 relied upon. (c) Evidence—Identification parade—Delay—Effect Identification parade held after lapse of ten days from arrest—Unexplained delay renders the process doubtful—Reliance on such identification without corroborative recovery or contemporaneous evidence held unsafe for denial of bail. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Principles governing grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences When the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail becomes a rule and refusal an exception—Continued detention before conclusion of trial amounts to pre-trial punishment. (e) Practice and procedure—Conditions of bail and caution Bail granted subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations held tentative and not to prejudice trial; court empowered to cancel bail if misused. Cited cases: • Irfan v. The State 2018 YLR 85 • Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2023 MLD 1972 (g) Disposition — Bail application allowed—Applicant Lal Muhammad released on bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. on furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations declared tentative and without prejudice to trial proceedings.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- Background: The petitioner, Liaqat Hussain, was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jand (Attock) for the murders of his nephew Hassan Jaleel and sister Taj Begum, as well as for causing firearm injuries to Mussarat Shaheen (wife of Hassan Jaleel). The incident occurred on September 2, 2013, and the FIR was lodged on the same day by Naimat Khan (PW.10). The trial court awarded him the death penalty for the murders and various other sentences for attempted murder and causing injuries. Hussain's convictions and sentences were upheld by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. He subsequently filed Jail Petition No. 269 of 2017 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ----Issues: Whether the convictions and sentences awarded to Liaqat Hussain were justified based on the evidence presented. Whether there were any mitigating circumstances that could reduce the death penalty to life imprisonment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reviewed the testimony of eye witnesses (PW.10 and PW.12) and the injured witness Mussarat Shaheen (PW.11), which were found to be credible and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports. The Court acknowledged the statement by the complainant that the legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned the convict and were not interested in further pursuing the matter. Considering the altercation between the convict and the deceased over a land dispute as a mitigating circumstance, along with the statement of pardon, the Court found it appropriate to reduce the death penalty to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court converted Jail Petition No. 269 of 2017 into an appeal and partly allowed it, maintaining the conviction under section 302(b) PPC but reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The compensations and other sentences were upheld, and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 302(b) PPC: Death sentence for murder. Section 324 PPC: Attempt to commit murder. Section 337-F(iii) PPC: Causing injury. Section 337-D PPC: Causing "Jurh Jaifa" (serious injury). Section 382-B Cr.P.C.: Benefit of deduction of the period of detention.