Summary: The case arose from the discovery of the dead body of an unknown lady with firearm injuries. During the investigation, an empty shell of 30 bore was recovered, and blood-stained earth was secured from the spot. The parents of the deceased recorded statements under section 164 Cr.P.C, stating that their daughter had illicit relations with the appellant and had eloped with him. They also accused the appellant of murdering their daughter. The trial court convicted him of the murder. However, the confessional statement was recorded after the appellant had been in police custody for three days, and it was later retracted. The High Court found that the entire case relied on the retracted confessional statement and that no other evidence corroborated it. The prosecution did not produce any evidence of the alleged marriage or abduction of the deceased by the appellant. The alleged recovery of the pistol was not adequately supported, as the Shop Keeper who handed over the pistol was not produced as a witness. High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and law relating to circumstantial evidence ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Murder, kidnapping/abduction, unnatural offence and common intention---Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence---Principles for reliance on circumstantial evidence in a capital case---Prosecution alleged that deceased child was subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death and relied upon retracted confession, last-seen evidence, motive, medical evidence and pointing out of place of occurrence---Held, that in cases involving capital punishment, all incriminating circumstances must be so inter-linked as to form one complete and unbroken chain, one end whereof touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---Any missing link destroys the entire chain and renders such evidence unsafe for sustaining conviction---Circumstantial evidence is to be examined with extra care and caution because chances of procuring and fabricating such evidence are always present---Where the investigation shows indications of manipulation, false inference cannot be drawn against the accused---Prosecution having failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances, conviction could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1992 SC 254 • Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia 1992 SCMR 1047 • Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214 • Lejzor v. The Queen PLD 1952 PC 109 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C.---Retracted confession---Evidentiary value---Juvenile accused---Requirement of voluntariness, truthfulness and strict procedural safeguards---Accused juvenile remained in police custody for several days and confession was later recorded by Magistrate---Confession was retracted and was found to be highly suspicious---Held, that for acceptance of confession it must be voluntary, based on a true account of facts and duly proved at trial---Where the confessional statement was recorded without providing sufficient time for reflection and without extending, in the case of a juvenile, the desirable protection of consultation/counselling through a natural guardian or close mature blood relative having no conflict of interest, the confession lost its sanctity---Confession was further contradicted by established facts on record and clashed with other prosecution evidence---Subsequent insertion/manipulation regarding name of co-accused in the original record also struck at the root of the confessional statement---Magistrate stated that confession was made in Hindko dialect and translated by him into Urdu, but neither certified nor proved that he was fully acquainted with Hindko and had translated it word by word---In such circumstances, retracted confession was devoid of legal worth and could not safely be made basis of conviction on a capital charge. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 164 and general principles of admissibility---Tracking by sniffer dogs---No express or implied admissibility---Investigating Officer arrested accused after one dog, out of many, entered house of accused’s father and sat on a cot---No pointation memo of said proceedings was prepared, no evidence was available regarding training standard of dogs, and dog exercise was privately arranged by complainant party---Held, that no provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order endorsed such process as substantive incriminating evidence---Mere conduct of one dog, particularly in absence of legally recognized procedure and proper documentation, could not form lawful basis for implicating an accused---Such material was of no evidentiary value. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss.161 & 164---Last seen evidence---Chance witness---Identification not conducted---Reliability---Prosecution produced witness who stated that he had, by chance, seen deceased in company of one co-accused and two unknown persons---No identification parade was arranged for identification of the two unknown persons---Witness remained silent despite knowing of disappearance of child and circumstances of his introduction into investigation were doubtful---Statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded at belated stage---Held, that such witness was a chance witness and his evidence was cryptic and infirm in nature and substance---Absence of identification parade and unexplained silence of witness materially impaired his credibility---Where time of death itself was uncertain and distances between relevant places were not established, last-seen evidence was of no help to the prosecution and deserved outright rejection. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Motive---Belatedly introduced motive---Value---Prosecution alleged that accused committed offence to avenge beating given by complainant to them for plucking fruits from his orchard---Said motive was neither mentioned in the FIR nor disclosed before discovery of dead body and arrest of accused---Investigating Officer admitted that motive first surfaced through persons earlier arrested as suspects and later released---Held, that if motive had genuinely existed, it would normally have been disclosed at the earliest opportunity, particularly by complainant who was himself a practicing lawyer---Belated introduction of motive after arrest of accused rendered it doubtful and artificial---Such motive appeared to be a self-manufactured cosmetic baseline prepared with police connivance and remained wholly unestablished. (f) Medical jurisprudence and evidentiary value of medical evidence ----Medical evidence---Confirmatory nature---Not corroboratory for identification of culprit---Autopsy established that deceased child had been subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death---Only one swab was found stained with human semen but no semen samples of accused were obtained and sent for cross-matching---Held, that though medical evidence confirmed cause and manner of death, it could not by itself identify the perpetrators---Where necessary scientific steps for cross-matching were not taken, medical evidence remained merely confirmatory/supportive and could not furnish corroboration connecting accused individually with commission of offence. Cited Cases: • Mst. Ehsan Begum v. The State PLD 1983 FSC 204 • Ghulam Abbas v. SHO Police Station City Chiniot Jhang 1996 P Cr. LJ 1661 • Waqar-ul-Islam v. State PLJ 1998 FSC 13 (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 40 / law relating to discovery and conduct---Pointing out of place of occurrence---No fresh discovery---Crime spot already known to police---Accused allegedly pointed out school premises where offence had been committed---School was surrounded by boundary wall, had a gate and chowkidar, and was closed due to winter vacations---Police already knew the crime spot and no fresh fact was discovered in consequence of disclosure---Held, that where place of occurrence was already in police knowledge and no new incriminating article or fact was discovered as a result of alleged pointing out, such evidence had no legal worth---Even otherwise, if place was accessible, it could not necessarily indicate exclusive knowledge or involvement of accused. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Single reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Case marked by suspicious confession, inadmissible dog-tracking exercise, unreliable last-seen evidence, unproved motive, inconclusive medical linkage and valueless pointing out evidence---Held, that even one reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as of right and not of grace---Where prosecution miserably failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction could not stand. Cited Cases: • Riaz Masih @ Mithoo v. The State NLR 1995 Crl. 694 (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Appellate jurisdiction ----Non-appealing co-accused---Extension of benefit of doubt---Complainant had sought enhancement of sentence against non-appealing co-accused, but case against him was not distinguishable on factual or legal grounds from that of appellants---Held, that where evidence against non-appealing accused is inseparable from and indistinguishable to that against appealing accused, the same benefit of doubt and acquittal can be extended to him as well. Cited Cases: • Haji Syed Rafi Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1992 SC 251 • Muhabbat Ali v. The State 1985 SCMR 662 Disposition: Criminal Appeals No.115 and 116 of 2013 were allowed; convictions and sentences of Hashim Qasim and Khayam Khurshid were set aside and both were acquitted of all charges. Benefit of doubt was also extended to non-appealing accused Shoaib Ahmed, who too was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Criminal Petition No.161 of 2013 seeking enhancement of sentence was held to have become infructuous and was dismissed. Hashim Qasim v. The State and Khayam Khurshid v. The State, Criminal Appeals No.115 & 116 of 2013, decided on 12.04.2017 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: Bail denied----Background:In the Criminal Revision No.14 of 2015 before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner, challenged the decision of the Shariat Court releasing the respondents on bail. The respondents, were accused of abducting the petitioner's sisters for the purpose of committing Zina and theft. The petitioner contended that the Shariat Court's decision was erroneous and against the evidence on record.----Issues:Whether the Shariat Court's decision to grant bail to the respondents was legally sound.Whether the respondents were connected with the alleged crimes based on the evidence presented.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Shariat Court's decision to grant bail to the respondents was not maintainable. It reasoned that the evidence, including the statements of the abducted sisters recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), indicated that they were forcibly abducted and subjected to Zina. The court emphasized that the case against the respondents did not merit further inquiry, as they were prima facie connected with the crimes. Therefore, the bail granted by the Shariat Court was cancelled, and the respondents were ordered to be taken into custody. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial process.-----Citations/Precedents:[PLD 1968 SC 621][2007 SCMR 244]

Summary: The case involved an incident of abduction. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court, seeking the summoning of respondents No.1 to 5, based on the fact that they had been nominated by witnesses in their statements under various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the trial court dismissed the application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a criminal revision against this order, but it was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed this constitutional petition to challenge these orders. The petitioner argued that the orders of the lower courts were against the relevant law and facts of the case. She contended that the delay in deciding her application for summoning the accused was unreasonable and prejudicial to her right to a fair trial. Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, in his judgment, noted that specific individuals, including respondents No. 2, 4, and 5, had been nominated by the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, Mst. Khushnood Bibi had implicated respondents No. 1 and 3 in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge also observed that the trial court had unreasonably delayed its decision on the petitioner's application. Given the available evidence against respondents No. 1 to 5, the judge concluded that the petitioner's application for summoning the accused should be granted. Consequently, the impugned orders of the lower courts were set aside. The trial court was directed to issue process against respondents No. 1 to 5 and complete the trial swiftly, preferably within six months, while ensuring that the trial proceeds on a day-to-day basis. The Lahore High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the trial court to issue process against the accused persons based on the available evidence and complete the trial promptly.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---The case stems from an investigation into the recovery of heroin from a house in Lahore. The prosecution's evidence included statements made by the accused under Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the recovery of heroin from the house. However, the court found several legal and evidentiary deficiencies in the case. First, the statement made under Section 164 was improperly recorded and did not meet legal requirements. The appellant's signature on the statement appeared to have been obtained on a blank paper, and the Illaqa Magistrate failed to follow proper procedures. Second, regarding the recovery of heroin, the evidence showed that the appellant was outside the house when the search was conducted by Anti-Narcotics officials, and he did not lead them to the heroin. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, they acquitted the appellant of the charges and discharged his surety. Additionally, the court noted that the previous conviction of the appellant could not be considered in the absence of proper evidence presented during the trial.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----Ss. 496-A & 328—Elopement and child abandonment—Conviction and sentence—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad was convicted under S. 496-A, PPC, for eloping with a married woman and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Appellant Mst. Sheema was convicted under S. 328, PPC, for alleged abandonment of her minor children and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Trial Court relied on the confessional statement of accused Ibrar Ahmad, which he later retracted, but the High Court held that a voluntary and legally recorded confession retains its evidentiary value even if retracted—Conviction under S. 496-A, PPC, upheld, but sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment in light of appellant’s young age and lack of prior criminal record—Fine reduced to Rs. 10,000/- with ten days' simple imprisonment in default of payment. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — ----S. 164—Judicial confession—Retraction—Evidentiary value—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad’s confession recorded by a Judicial Magistrate was found to be voluntary and in compliance with procedural safeguards—High Court reaffirmed that a retracted confession, if made voluntarily and supported by corroborative evidence, can be the sole basis for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (1995 SCMR 1615) and Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan (2001 SCMR 988). (c) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----S. 328—Exposure and abandonment of child—Scope—Temporary absence of a mother does not constitute abandonment under S. 328, PPC—High Court held that for an offence under S. 328, PPC, prosecution must prove that the accused deliberately abandoned a child under twelve years of age in a situation of real danger—Appellant Mst. Sheema’s minor children remained in the care of their paternal family and were not exposed to any imminent harm—Conviction under S. 328, PPC, was set aside, and appellant was acquitted. (d) Administration of justice— ----Strict interpretation of penal provisions—Penal statutes must be construed strictly—High Court observed that broad or liberal interpretations of criminal statutes should be avoided to ensure fair administration of justice—Temporary neglect of children, without evidence of actual danger or intent to abandon, does not fulfill the requirements of S. 328, PPC—Appeal allowed to the extent of acquitting appellant Mst. Sheema. Disposition: Conviction of appellant Ibrar Ahmad under S. 496-A, PPC, maintained, but sentence reduced from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine reduction from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- or ten days' simple imprisonment in default. Conviction of appellant Mst. Sheema under S. 328, PPC, set aside—She was acquitted and ordered to be released. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ismail v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1615 • Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan, 2001 SCMR 988

Summary: Bail denied ----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 377-A & 377-B ---- Sexual abuse of a minor by a mosque Imam ---- Definition of sexual abuse ---- Delay in FIR ---- Medico-legal examination ---- Similar allegations in prior FIRs ---- Bail declined. Allegation against the petitioner, an Imam, was that he lured a 9-year-old boy into his room after Maghrib prayer and engaged in obscene conduct amounting to attempted sodomy. The contention of delay in lodging the F.I.R. was not considered sufficient to justify bail, as incidents involving family honour and child abuse often face delayed reporting due to societal stigma and fear. Seven other F.I.Rs containing similar allegations had already been registered against the petitioner, displaying a recurring pattern and state of mind relevant under Art. 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The term “sexual abuse” under S. 377-A, PPC includes a wide range of conduct—fondling, caressing, exhibitionism, voyeurism—regardless of consummation, and is applicable even in the absence of a medico-legal report, especially where disclosure was delayed by the victim due to fear. Victim’s statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. showed maturity and was corroborated by other evidence. Circumstances showed the petitioner was a habitual offender, and the gravity and nature of the offence shocked public morality. Held, prima facie case existed falling under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.; thus, post-arrest bail was rightly declined. Cited Provisions: • Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377-A & 377-B • Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 497 • Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 27 Disposition: Bail petition dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 164 & 364---Confessional statements---Recording of confessional statements of accused---Compliance with mandatory provisions---Requirements---Effect of non-compliance---Three accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment based on alleged confessional statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Federal Shariat Court observed that the confessional statements were vague, lacking in essential particulars, and identical in sequence and language, raising suspicion of fabrication---Statements were recorded without providing sufficient reflection time, and without fulfilling the procedural safeguards mandated under S.364, Cr.P.C.---Judicial Magistrate admitted that statements were typed and dictated to a clerk, and were not explained to the accused in their native language (Pashto)---Statements were recorded in Urdu/English while the accused were Pashto speakers, with no record of interpretation or comprehension---Held, that the confessional statements were involuntary, not recorded in compliance with law, and inadmissible. Cited Case: Muhammad Ismail v. State 2017 SCMR 713. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984): ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse inference---Non-examination of key witnesses---Prosecution failed to examine key witnesses including PW Siraj Ahmed and Daulat Khan, whose statements were critical to establishing identity of the accused and recovery of stolen property---Prosecution took the plea that these witnesses had been won over, yet failed to produce any medical record or supporting documents for non-production---Held, that adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO must be drawn against the prosecution for withholding best available evidence. (c) Criminal Trial: ----Benefit of doubt---Delayed nomination of accused---Unexplained delay in recording statements---Effect---Accused were not named in the FIR or mursaila---Names surfaced more than 30 days later in statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., based solely on hearsay without disclosing source of information---Court observed that unexplained delay in naming accused renders their statements highly doubtful and unreliable---Benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Cited Case: Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 412 & 202---Robbery and concealment of stolen property---Failure to prove recoveries---Confessional statements not corroborated---No incriminating material recovered from the accused at the time of arrest---Prosecution failed to establish recovery of stolen currency, motorcycles or mobile phones---Alleged recoveries were undocumented, unsealed, or not linked to the accused---Motorcycle was not properly identified through chassis or registration records---Held, that prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. (e) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979): ----S. 17(4)---Conviction under Harrabah---Prosecution evidence insufficient---Conviction based on defective confessional statements and inadmissible evidence---Federal Shariat Court observed that conviction under S.17(4) of the Ordinance cannot be sustained in absence of credible, independent, and corroborated evidence---Benefit of doubt extended to appellants. (f) Criminal Jurisprudence: ----Standard of proof---Principle of benefit of doubt---Multiple infirmities in prosecution case---Effect---Where multiple doubts exist including procedural irregularities, inadmissible evidence, delayed statements, and contradictions in prosecution witnesses, no conviction can be sustained---Held, that benefit of doubt is a right of the accused and must be given even if a single material doubt arises. ---Cited Cases: • Akhtar Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 • Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 1997 SCMR 25 • Ghulam Qadir v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 ----Disposition: Jail Criminal Appeal No. 07-I of 2022 allowed---Conviction and sentence of Khadim Hussain, Naseeb Ullah, and Abdur Rehman set aside---Appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt---Criminal Appeal No. 01-I of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 01-I of 2023 dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497 & S. 497(5)---Bail---Principles governing grant and cancellation of bail---Accused-appellant, a woman, was granted bail by the trial court, but the Shariat Court cancelled the same---Legality of cancellation examined. Accused-appellant was charged under Ss. 302, 324, 458, and 34, P.P.C. for alleged connivance in the murder of her mother-in-law. The case against the accused primarily rested on a confessional statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., which was later retracted, and the recovery of a Shalwar allegedly stained with semen. Prosecution contended that accused had illicit relations with the co-accused and conspired to eliminate her mother-in-law, who had witnessed her interactions. However, the FIR was registered a day after the occurrence, without nominating the accused, and no direct evidence connected her to the crime. The confessional statement was recorded after 24 days of the occurrence and required further inquiry into its voluntariness. Furthermore, the recovery of the Shalwar occurred 13 days after the incident, requiring corroboration. The accused, being a woman, was entitled to the benefit of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., which permits bail in cases of further inquiry. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, considering these factors, held that the order of the Shariat Court cancelling bail was not a lawful exercise of jurisdiction and reinstated the bail granted by the trial court. Held, the appeal was accepted, and the accused was granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 200,000 with one surety of the same amount. (b) Criminal Procedure--- ----Evidentiary value of retracted confessions---Confession recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., when retracted, must be evaluated in light of corroborative evidence. A confessional statement made by an accused can form the basis of conviction only if found voluntary, true, and free from coercion. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir reiterated the settled principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration in material particulars before reliance can be placed upon it. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroboration in this case, thereby rendering the confessional statement unreliable for denying bail. ----Cited Cases: Khalid Javed Gillani v. The State PLD 1978 SC 256 Zahid Paris v. The State 1995 SCR 104 The State v. Minhun alias Gul Hassan PLD 1964 SC 813 Ali Akbar v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 890

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 497: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 302/34 & 460 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985---S. 14 Bail---Grant or refusal---Principles---At the stage of bail, courts are required to make a tentative assessment of the evidence rather than an in-depth examination or detailed appreciation of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency. Reasonable grounds implicating the accused in the commission of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment would justify the refusal of bail. In the present case, the accused/petitioners were charged with heinous offences, including rape, murder, and robbery, coupled with recovery of stolen items and confessional statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. Tentative assessment of evidence revealed tangible material connecting the accused/petitioners with the offences. Held, trial court’s exercise of discretion in refusing bail was neither arbitrary nor whimsical and warranted no interference. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 164: Confessional statements---Admissibility---Confessional statement of one of the accused recorded after 20 days of arrest under S.164, Cr.P.C. was challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularity. Held, admissibility of such statements and their evidentiary value would be determined during trial rather than at the bail stage. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 497: Case-law applicability in bail matters---Case-law cited by petitioners in support of their bail application was found to be distinguishable due to differing facts and circumstances. Held, principles of law applied in bail cases are specific to the unique facts of each case. ----Disposition: Bail refused.