Summary: Background: The case involves an appeal and reference related to the murder of Allah Ditta. The appellants, Gul Nawaz, Sumaira Kousar, and Naseem Begum, were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Dadyal. Gul Nawaz was sentenced to death, while Sumaira and Naseem were sentenced to life imprisonment. The case was brought to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for appeal and confirmation of the death sentence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 2- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and other alleged procedural irregularities cast doubt on the prosecution's case. 3- Whether the absence of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's statements under section 164 Cr.PC, justified the conviction. 4- Whether the mitigating circumstances, such as the lack of motive and absence of a serologist report, should reduce the severity of the punishment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that circumstantial evidence must form a well-knit chain linking the crime directly to the accused. In this case, the court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's body, weapon, and other related items, supported the prosecution's case. The court addressed the delay in filing the FIR, stating that it was not fatal to the prosecution's case, considering the circumstances and the nature of the crime. The court considered the statements recorded under section 164 Cr.PC as corroborative evidence, which, when combined with the other circumstantial evidence, justified the conviction. The court acknowledged the absence of a clear motive and the lack of a serologist report as mitigating factors. Consequently, the death sentence of Gul Nawaz was reduced to life imprisonment, and the sentences of Sumaira Kousar and Naseem Begum were reduced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment each. ----Citations/Precedents: 1995 PCr.L.J. Pesh. 313. PLD 1986 S.C. AJK 35. PLJ 2011 Cr.C. 666. PLJ 2010 Supreme Court 418. 2003 SCMR 1419.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Imran Hussain alias Mani and Naeem Akhter for the murder of Sagheer Azam. The appellants were convicted by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with additional sentences under sections 341 and 13 of the Arms Act, 1965. The appellants challenged this conviction in the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 2- Whether the confessions recorded under section 164 Cr.PC were voluntary and could be relied upon. 3- Whether the delay in recoveries and the lack of direct evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's case. 4- Whether the appellants could be convicted under section 302-APC in a case involving an alleged robbery. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Sufficiency of Evidence: The court held that the prosecution successfully established that the deceased, Sagheer Azam, met an unnatural death due to firearm injuries. The medical evidence, supported by the testimony of the medico-legal officer, confirmed the cause of death. Confessions: The court determined that the confessional statements made by the accused under section 164 Cr.PC were voluntary and recorded in compliance with the legal procedures. Despite the accused retracting their confessions, the court found the statements credible and sufficient to support the conviction. Recoveries and Delay: The court rejected the argument that the delayed recoveries of the weapons were unreliable, stating that the recoveries were made from the accused's residences, which were safe locations and not easily accessible to others. Conviction under Section 302-APC: The court dismissed the argument that the appellants could not be convicted under section 302-APC in a case involving robbery. The court referred to previous case law, noting that if a murder occurs during a robbery and meets the criteria of Qatal-e-Amd under section 300-APC, a conviction under section 302-APC is justified. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 2007 SC 97. 2007 SCMR 782. PLD 2006 SC 30. PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 636. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 981. PLJ 2008 FSC 136. NLR 1986 Criminal 614. 2008 P Cr. L J 633. 2008 P Cr.L J 507. 2006 PCr.L J 507. PLJ 2013 Cr.C. Lahore 74. PLJ 2016 Supreme Court 123. 2017 SCR 1005. 2007 P Cr.L J 359. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions of the appellants. The confessions, corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and recoveries, were deemed sufficient to justify the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower court.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: This case involves a criminal appeal in which the appellant was initially acquitted by the District Criminal Court in a case involving the murder and alleged sodomy of a 6-year-old child. The incident occurred when the child went missing and was later found dead near a mosque, showing signs of strangulation. The accused was arrested based on circumstantial evidence, including his confession and the recovery of incriminating items. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court’s acquittal of the accused was justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 Cr.PC. was admissible and sufficient for conviction. 3- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence and recoveries, was sufficient to establish guilt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Shariat Appellate Bench found that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused. The appellate court determined that the confessional statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC. was voluntary, credible, and made following proper legal procedures. The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence and the recovery of items connected to the crime, was strong and corroborative, supporting the prosecution's case. The trial court's reasons for acquittal, such as the absence of a minor witness and the non-appearance of the doctor who conducted the postmortem, were deemed insufficient to undermine the prosecution’s case. As a result, the appellate court set aside the acquittal, convicted the accused under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and sentenced him to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment, granting the benefit of time served. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 2007 SC 97 2007 SCMR 782 PLD 2006 SC 30 2007 SCMR 808 2020 SCR 630 NLR 1998 Cr.SC 669 1998 SCMR 1778 2003 SCMR 647 2003 PCr.LJ Lahore 97

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law – Acquittal Due to Doubtful Prosecution Case: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 336, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Where prosecution evidence contains glaring contradictions, discrepancies, and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Victim's medical report contradicted her own version of how injuries were sustained—Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and did not align with medical findings—Failure to comply with legal requirements, such as framing a proper charge or confronting the accused with all incriminating evidence under S. 342, Cr.P.C., vitiates the trial—Reliance placed on Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730), Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186), Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374). (b) Contradictory Evidence – Impact on Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164 & 342 – Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 336, 365-B, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on crucial aspects of the case—Victim claimed injuries were inflicted with an iron rod, while medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a road traffic accident—Witnesses’ statements during trial were at variance with their statements recorded under S. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C.—Failure to confront the accused with all material evidence in his S. 342 statement violated the principles of a fair trial—Benefit of doubt granted to the accused—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574). (c) Delay in Lodging FIR – Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) FIR lodged 28 hours after the alleged abduction without any plausible explanation—Unexplained delay in FIR registration raises presumption of afterthought, deliberation, and false implication—Delayed FIRs weaken the prosecution case unless properly justified—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428). (d) Independent Witness Requirement – Failure to Associate Neutral Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version—All witnesses were related and interested, with no neutral corroboration—Prosecution’s failure to secure independent testimony supports inference of manipulation—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574), The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – Benefit of Doubt to Accused: ---- Islamic and Common Law Principles of Criminal Justice Burden lies on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—If contradictions, inconsistencies, or gaps exist in the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused—Islamic principles emphasize that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to punish one innocent—Reliance placed on Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374), Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730) Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186) Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374) Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408)

Summary: Bail Application.I). The complainant did not stick to his stance and as such he was permitted to record the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C which is still holding the field, though proceedings under section 182 P.P.C are still under Progress against the complainant.III). At bail stage deeper appreciation is not warranted and only tentative assessment is to be made, but equally true that bail applications cannot be heard and decided in a vacuum, rather the courts seized of the record must go through the record of the case, though tentatively.(Bail application was Allowed).

Summary: 265-J Cr.P.C: Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C admissible. The statement of a witness duly recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C if it was made in the presence of the accused and if he had notice of it and was given an opportunity of cross examining the witness may, in the discretion of court, if such witness is produced and examined, be treated as evidence in the case for purposes subjects to the provisions of the evidence act.

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murders of two individuals, based on circumstantial evidence. They were sentenced to death under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and were also sentenced to seven years for causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 PPC. The trial court acquitted a co-accused. The appellants challenged their conviction, while a murder reference was sent to the High Court for confirmation of their death sentence. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Was the conviction of the appellants justified based on circumstantial evidence, including a judicial confession? ----- 2) Was the confession made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. voluntary and admissible? ----- 3) Did the prosecution prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? ----- Holding/Reasoning: Lack of Direct Evidence: The case against the appellants was based solely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the murders, and the FIR did not initially identify the accused. ----- Judicial Confession: The court closely examined the confession made by one of the appellants under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and found several procedural issues. The confession was made after an extended period in police custody, raising concerns about coercion. The magistrate who recorded the confession failed to inquire properly about the conditions under which it was made or whether the appellant was informed that he was not obligated to confess. These procedural lapses cast doubt on the voluntary nature of the confession, leading the court to rule it inadmissible. ----- Circumstantial Evidence: The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellants with blood-stained clothing. These witnesses were considered "chance witnesses" and did not provide a convincing reason for their presence near the crime scene. Additionally, the prosecution did not submit the recovered items for forensic testing to confirm their connection to the crime, further weakening the evidence. ----- Legal Principles for Circumstantial Evidence: The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete that it leaves no room for doubt about the accused’s guilt. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of events linking the appellants to the crime. ----- Confession of Co-accused: The court reaffirmed the principle that a confession by one accused can only be used as corroborative evidence against others, not as the sole basis for conviction. In this case, the confession was inconsistent with other evidence, rendering it unreliable. ----- Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted, and their convictions and sentences were overturned. ----- Outcome: Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019: Allowed; the appellants were acquitted. Murder Reference No.25 of 2019: The death sentence was not confirmed. ----- Citations/Precedents: Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (AIR 1995 SC 1387) Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (PLD 1949 Privy Council 90) Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (PLJ 2016 Supreme Court 123) Mst.Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) Muhammad Bilal and another v. The State (2021 SCMR 1039) Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State (1992 SCMR 1983)

Summary: The petitioner was arrested along with nine others by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Afzal for gaming at a public place near Chungi No.11, Multan.The petitioner's counsel argued that the magistrate's order was without jurisdiction, contending that the confession made by the petitioner was not recorded in accordance with the procedure stipulated in section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The counsel for the petitioner further argued that any irregularity in the proceedings could not be cured under section 537 of the Cr.P.C. The deputy prosecutor general contended that the petitioner's confession was duly recorded by the magistrate and that any irregularity could be cured under section 537 of the Cr.P.C. Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253): This case was cited to establish the principle that confessions recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C must adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure, and any violation renders the confession inadmissible. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and others (AIR 1964 SC 358), Ramaswami Reddiar (AIR 1953 Madras 138), these legal precedents were invoked to underscore the significance of following the procedural safeguards outlined in section 164 of the Cr.P.C when recording confessions, and to establish the inadmissibility of confessions recorded in violation of these procedures. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned order convicting the petitioner was set aside. The judgment also extended the benefit of its findings to the co-accused in the case, setting aside their convictions as well.

Summary: Application for post arrest bail.Held: (i) The occurrence took place in the house where deceased was alleged to be present in the room of Mst. Uzma Bibi, sister of accused/petitioner at night time. Mst. Uzma Bibi resiled from her statement recorded by police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by exonerating the accused in her statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C, which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry.(ii) The call data which was necessary evidence in the present case was not placed on the file to show contact between the deceased and Mst. Uzma Bibi, sister of the accused/petitioner.(iii) The evidentiary value of positive FSL report regarding recovery of .30 bore pistol on the pointation of accused/petitioner and the recovered empties can better be determined in case of the co-accused, as the pistol in question is the ownership of absconding co-accused, who happens to be father of the petitioner.(iv) It is established principle of law that benefit of doubt can even be extended at bail stage.(Bail petition was allowed in the circumstances)

Summary: Retracted judicial Confession may be treated to be sufficient to sustain a conviction if found voluntary and true, but as a rule of prudence, the same should not be acted upon unless corroborated by some other reliable evidence. For acceptance of judicial confession, two essentials are the sine qua none, which must be fulfilled, first that the confession was made voluntarily and was based on true account of facts leading to the crime and, second, the same was proved at the trial. Rel: (2017 SCMR 986). Section 164 Cr.P.C deals with the recording of statements and confessions at any stage before thecommencement of an enquiry or trial while section 364 Cr.p.C provides the mode in which the examination of an accused person is recorded. According to the said provisions, the questions put to the accused and the answers given by him should be clearly and accurately recorded as the evidential value of a confession depends upon its voluntary character and the accuracy with whichit is, reproduced and, hence, the section provides safeguards to secure this end, which is of great importance and rationale behind it is that the same are often retracted at a later stage and it becomes necessary for the Court to determine whether the alleged confession was actually and voluntary made but here in the case in hand the provisions of section 364 Cr.P.C have blatantly been violated. The perusal of confessional statements would reveal that in both the cases questionnaires and answers are in printed forms, thus, all the relevant warning allegedly communicated before recording of their statements have been made recklessly and hastily and without due care which aspect of the case is also evident from the record that the accused-respondents were arrested on 12.10.2017 while their confessional statements were recorded on 16.10.2017, after four days of their arrest but in both the cases in reply to question No.3, i.e., how long have you been in police custody, the answers are available in the printed form as they did not remain in custody . Again, we have placed boththe confessional statements in juxtaposition with the contents of FIR and found that the statements are contradictory to the story as narrated by the prosecution. thus, the confessions of the respondents-accused are neither true nor voluntary. Wisdom is derived from the case titled Muhammad Azhar Hussain and another vs. The State and another (PLD 2019 SC 595), Muhammad Ismail vs. the State (2017 SCMR 317), & Azeem khan vs Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274).