Summary: Conviction upheld---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 365-A, 337-F(ii) & 342 Abduction for ransom—Proof of intent—Applicability of Section 365-A, P.P.C.—Appellants were convicted under Section 365-A, P.P.C. for abducting an Executive Engineer and others, demanding Rs. 50 lacs as ransom, and confining the victims in the mountains—Appellants contended that the offence fell under Section 365, P.P.C. as no ransom was actually received—Held, in abduction cases, the intent of the accused is inferred from subsequent acts—Appellants used firearms, injured the complainant, confined the abductees, and compelled them to write a ransom demand—Their actions demonstrated a clear intent to extort money, making Section 365-A, P.P.C. applicable—Reliance placed on Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. The State 1999 SCMR 1744—Contention rejected. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 164 Confessional statements—Delay in recording—Effect—Appellants challenged the credibility of their confessional statements, recorded 8-9 days after arrest—Held, mere delay in recording a confession does not render it inadmissible—Confessions were found to be voluntary, consistent with each other, and corroborated by other evidence, including the complainant’s testimony—Courts must assess the voluntariness and truthfulness of a confession rather than focus solely on the time gap—Reliance placed on Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. The State 1999 SCMR 1744—Confessions found credible. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 342 Identification of accused—Common intention—Non-nomination of some accused by abductees—Appellants contended that two of them were not identified by the abductees and should be acquitted—Held, prosecution proved that five accused participated in the abduction, with three guarding the abductees and two taking away the vehicle—Even if certain accused were not directly identified by victims, their involvement in furtherance of common intention was evident—Confessional statements, corroborated by abductees' accounts, established the role of all accused—No ground for acquittal. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 164 Magistrate recording confession—Allegation of association with investigation—Effect on credibility—Defense argued that the Magistrate who recorded the confessions was involved in the investigation—Held, mere presence of the Magistrate at the recovery site does not disqualify him from recording a confession—He was not a witness, nor did he take part in the investigation—Confessions were voluntary, credible, and corroborated by other evidence—No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. (e) Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Convictions and sentences under Sections 365-A, 337-F(ii), and 342, P.P.C. upheld—Findings of trial court affirmed.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497----Bail application----Grant of bail----Scope----Accused charged under S. 354/457, P.P.C. and S. 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly entering the complainant's house at night and attempting to commit rape----FIR lodged with a delay, though the police station was at a short distance from the place of occurrence----Complainant identified the accused in the light of a lantern, but the lantern was not taken into possession by the police----Co-accused granted bail by the Sessions Judge, and no cancellation application was filed against him----Complainant’s statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. did not explicitly state the accused’s intent----Held, that keeping in view the delay in lodging FIR, absence of material evidence, and inconsistency in statements, the case was fit for grant of bail----Bail granted subject to furnishing surety. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 354/457----Outraging modesty and house trespass----Allegation that accused entered complainant’s house and attempted to assault her----No clear evidence of intent or corroborative material on record----Accused granted bail in the absence of strong incriminating evidence. (c) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)---- ----S. 18----Attempt to commit zina----Absence of material evidence to establish intent----Complainant did not explicitly state the accused’s intent in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.----No recovery of crucial evidence (lantern) that formed the basis of identification----Accused granted bail. ---Disposition: Bail granted subject to surety of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in like amount.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 120-B, 420, 382 & 414---Criminal conspiracy, cheating, theft, and receiving stolen property---Conviction and sentence---Appellant, along with co-accused, was charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, and theft of a vehicle---Prosecution relied on the ocular account of the complainant (P.W.1) and his cleaner (P.W.2), along with circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s confessional statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Ss. 120-B, 420, and 382, P.P.C., along with additional imprisonment under S. 414, P.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 164---Confession of accused---Admissibility---Retracted confession---Appellant retracted his confession, alleging that it was obtained under coercion and duress---Trial Court relied on the confession for conviction---Held, that the confession was not voluntary, as the appellant alleged mistreatment and coercion by the police and jail authorities---No corroborative evidence was provided to establish that the confession was made freely and voluntarily---In the absence of independent corroboration, a retracted and exculpatory confession was not a sufficient basis for conviction. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Role of accused in the occurrence---Presumption of innocence---Appellant was a young boy aged 16/17 years and was picked up alone at a later stage while the other co-accused were already present in the vehicle---No evidence suggested prior conspiracy or shared intent with the main accused---Held, that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant actively participated in the crime or shared a common intention with the other accused. (d) Duty of trial court---- ----Obligation to ensure fair trial and inquire into material allegations---Appellant made serious allegations of mistreatment, including coercion and sexual abuse by a police officer and another individual during detention---Trial Court failed to investigate these claims despite their relevance to the voluntariness of the confession---Held, that the trial court, as a fact-finding body, should have inquired into the allegations to ensure a fair trial and avoid wrongful conviction. (e) Criminal liability---- ----Common intention under S. 34, P.P.C.---Failure to frame charge properly---Trial Court did not explicitly charge the appellant under S. 34, P.P.C., nor was he questioned regarding the existence of a common intention with the main accused---Absence of such a charge indicated that no case of shared criminal intent was made out against him. ----Disposition: Appeal accepted. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: In this case, the appellant was convicted by the trial court for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl. The appellant was sentenced to death on three counts. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the confessional statement was coerced. -----Issues: 1- Did the prosecution establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? 2- Was the confessional statement made by the appellant voluntary and truthful, and sufficient to support the conviction? 3- Was the identification parade conducted properly, and did it corroborate the prosecution's case? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the postmortem report, and the confessional statement, formed a coherent and convincing chain that left no room for reasonable doubt. --Confessional Statement: The court determined that the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was voluntary and truthful. The appellant’s confession was found to be consistent with the forensic evidence and was thus deemed sufficient for conviction. The court upheld the principle that a voluntary and true confession alone is enough to sustain a conviction. --Identification Parade: The court concluded that the identification parade was conducted correctly, and the appellant was properly identified by witnesses as the individual seen with the victim before the crime. The identification provided further corroboration to the prosecution's case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court were upheld. The court confirmed the death sentence in the criminal murder reference. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Qadir and others Vs. The State (2007 SCMR 782) - The principle that a voluntary and true confession is sufficient for conviction was cited and applied by the court.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code for his involvement in a robbery and murder case. The incident occurred on June 5, 2008, when five armed individuals attempted to rob the complainant's vehicle. The appellant was accused of firing a fatal shot that killed the complainant's nephew. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine and undergo rigorous imprisonment. He appealed the decision, challenging the conviction and the legal process. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification of the appellant as the assailant was reliable and conducted according to legal standards. 2- Whether the recovery of the weapon from the appellant and the positive forensic report were sufficient to uphold the conviction. 3- Whether the delay in recording the witness statements and the lack of an identification parade affected the credibility of the prosecution's case. 4- Whether the evidence presented, including medical and ballistic reports, was consistent with the prosecution's narrative. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification of the Appellant: The court found that the identification of the appellant was flawed. The complainant and a witness claimed to have identified the appellant in the headlights of their vehicle, but no identification parade was conducted, and no description of the assailants was provided at the time of the FIR. The court noted that identification in court without prior identification procedures is unreliable. --Recovery of Weapon: The recovery of a Kalashnikov from the appellant was deemed unreliable due to the circumstances of the recovery. The court highlighted that the weapon and the empty shell from the crime scene were sent together for forensic analysis, a practice that raises suspicions of manipulation. The positive forensic report, therefore, could not be relied upon to convict the appellant. --Delay in Recording Statements: The court observed that the witness statements were recorded two days after the incident without justification for the delay. This, combined with the belated recording of statements under Section 164 of the Code, diminished the credibility of the witnesses and raised doubts about the authenticity of their testimonies. --Inconsistencies in Evidence: The medical evidence did not align with the witness accounts. The injuries sustained by the deceased were inconsistent with the narrative provided by the witnesses, further undermining the prosecution's case. --Acquittal: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant's conviction was based on unreliable identification, flawed recovery of the weapon, and inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. ----Citations/Precedents: Javed Khan alias Bacha and Another vs. The State and Another (2017 SCMR 524) Muhammad Asif vs. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Akhtar Ali and Others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Kashif Ali vs. The Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.II, Lahore and Others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 951) Ali Khan vs. The State (1999 SCJ 502) Muhammad Farooq and Another vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1707) Mushtaq and 3 Others vs. The State (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 1) Ali Sher and Others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 707) Hashim Qasim and Another vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Majeed alias Majeedi and Others vs. The State and Others (2019 SCMR 301

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: The case involves the alleged abduction of a young woman for the purpose of forcible marriage. The complainant, who was the guardian of the victim, reported that several men abducted the woman from her residence. Following the abduction, the victim was allegedly held captive for forty days, during which it was claimed that one of the accused committed zina (illicit intercourse) with her. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading the complainant to appeal the decision, seeking their conviction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the prosecution's evidence. 3- Whether the procedural shortcomings, such as the lack of cross-examination during the recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., affected the integrity of the trial. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and unreliable, with significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly the victim's. The court noted that the victim's statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was inadmissible due to the absence of cross-examination. The court emphasized the importance of fair trial procedures and held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the acquittal was maintained, and the appeal was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1981 SC 265 - "Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State" 1985 SCMR 614 - "Nazar Hussain v. The State" 2015 SCMR 1002 - "Ikramullah and others v. The State" PLD 2006 SC 465 - "Mohammad Ashraf v. The State" PLD 2011 SC 544 - "Abdul Khalique and another v. The State"