— Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Trial Court convicted five accused for murder and causing injuries — High Court acquitted three co-accused and commuted the death sentences of remaining two accused to life imprisonment — Two convicts filed further appeals to the Supreme Court, while the complainant also filed petitions challenging the acquittal of co-accused and seeking an increase in the sentences of the convicted individuals — During the pendency of the appeal, one of the convicts passed away in jail, leading to the abatement of his appeal — After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court observed several issues with the prosecution’s evidence — The firearms recovered from the accused were not sent for forensic analysis, which cast doubt on the evidence — Additionally, the complainant, who was an eyewitness, did not receive any injuries despite being close to the incident, raising questions about his presence at the scene — There were also contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses — Given these issues, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused — As a result, convict was acquitted, and the complainant’s appeals were dismissed. [2025 SCLR 6 = 2025 SCMR 45 = 2024 SCP 324]

Mere presence of a person with principal accused at the scene of occurrence would not make him liable for the acts of principal accused but when his presence is not that of a spectator rather is coupled by some overt act which facilitates a principal accused to commit an offence, then it would be safe to fix joint liability on such person as well. [2024 CCJ 33 = 2024 PCrLJ 343]

Common intention is not a physical/external fact like any other fact which may be perceived by any of five senses — Common intention is a state of mind which is a psychological fact. [2024 CCJ 33 = 2024 PCrLJ 343]

In normal circumstances a physical fact may be proved by the evidence of a witness, however, psychological fact is a state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith etc. which cannot be proved by an evidence of a witness — Common intention is state of mind which may be proved in a case keeping in view the overall circumstances of a case — Therefore, any fact, showing the existence of any state of mind towards any particular person is a relevant fact when the existence of any such state of mind is in issue under Article 27, the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. [2024 CCJ 33 = 2024 PCrLJ 343]

For application of section 34, P.P.C it would make no difference whether the co-accused of principal accused has also performed an actual act of commission of offence rather his presence with overt acts is sufficient evidence for proof of common intention. [2024 CCJ 33 = 2024 PCrLJ 343]

— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

— Qatl-i-amd, abetment and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Benefit of doubt — Contradictory evidence — Scope — The prosecution story revealed that the complainant, along with his maternal uncle and others, had come to their native village for offering fateha khawani — Suddenly, the accused and an unknown co-accused arrived at the graveyard armed with weapons and fired multiple shots, resulting in the death of complainant’s maternal uncle and brother — The motive behind the occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, was ongoing disputes regarding rishta — Two eye-witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident — The complainant later revealed the name of a co-accused in a supplementary statement — Further scrutiny revealed that the relationship between the witnesses and the accused was not denied, indicating their familiarity with each other — Despite this, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for not mentioning the name of co-accused in the initial crime report — Additionally, witness testimony regarding the distance from which the accused fired contradicted medical evidence, casting doubt on the veracity of the accounts — The lack of recovery of a crime weapon and disbelief in the alleged motive further weakened the prosecution’s case — Considering these factors, the court emphasized the necessity of corroborating evidence to support witness testimonies — It reiterated the principle that convictions must be based on unimpeachable evidence and resolved in favour of the accused in case of doubt — Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the accused was acquitted, with the impugned judgment set aside. [2024 SCLR 29 = 2024 SCMR 156 = 2023 SCP 332]

— Qatl-i-amd, abetment and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Benefit of doubt — Contradictory evidence — Scope — The prosecution story revealed that the complainant, along with his maternal uncle and others, had come to their native village for offering fateha khawani — Suddenly, the accused and an unknown co-accused arrived at the graveyard armed with weapons and fired multiple shots, resulting in the death of complainant’s maternal uncle and brother — The motive behind the occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, was ongoing disputes regarding rishta — Two eye-witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident — The complainant later revealed the name of a co-accused in a supplementary statement — Further scrutiny revealed that the relationship between the witnesses and the accused was not denied, indicating their familiarity with each other — Despite this, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for not mentioning the name of co-accused in the initial crime report — Additionally, witness testimony regarding the distance from which the accused fired contradicted medical evidence, casting doubt on the veracity of the accounts — The lack of recovery of a crime weapon and disbelief in the alleged motive further weakened the prosecution’s case — Considering these factors, the court emphasized the necessity of corroborating evidence to support witness testimonies — It reiterated the principle that convictions must be based on unimpeachable evidence and resolved in favour of the accused in case of doubt — Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the accused was acquitted, with the impugned judgment set aside. [2024 SCLR 29 = 2024 SCMR 156 = 2023 SCP 332]

— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

302. Punishment of qatl­-e­-amd.__ Whoever commits qatl-­e-­amd shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter be__

(a) punished with death as qisas;

(b) punished with death for imprisonment for life as ta’zir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in section 304 is not available; or

(c) punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twentyfive years, where according to the Injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable;

Provided that nothing in clause (c) shall apply where the principle of fasad-­fil­arz is attracted and in such cases only clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply.

—————

— Ss. 302, 324, 452 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Trial Court convicted five accused for murder and causing injuries — High Court acquitted three co-accused and commuted the death sentences of remaining two accused to life imprisonment — Two convicts filed further appeals to the Supreme Court, while the complainant also filed petitions challenging the acquittal of co-accused and seeking an increase in the sentences of the convicted individuals — During the pendency of the appeal, one of the convicts passed away in jail, leading to the abatement of his appeal — After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court observed several issues with the prosecution’s evidence — The firearms recovered from the accused were not sent for forensic analysis, which cast doubt on the evidence — Additionally, the complainant, who was an eyewitness, did not receive any injuries despite being close to the incident, raising questions about his presence at the scene — There were also contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses — Given these issues, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused — As a result, convict was acquitted, and the complainant’s appeals were dismissed. [2025 SCLR 6 = 2025 SCMR 45 = 2024 SCP 324]

— Ss. 302 & 324 — Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Appellant was alleged to have murdered the son of complainant and attempted at his life as well as that of an eye-witness — Complainant and eye-witness testified, describing how appellant, a co-villager, entered the shop armed and opened fire, killing deceased — Both witnesses affirmed the presence of adequate lighting and cited a dispute over women as the motive — Despite rigorous cross-examination, the defense could not discredit their testimonies — The court found that the consistent accounts of both eyewitnesses, corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence, eliminated any reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt — Appellant’s alibi, presented two years post-arrest, lacked credibility and supporting evidence, leading the court to dismiss his appeal and confirm his death sentence. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]

— S. 302(b) — Qatl-i-amd — Appreciation of evidence — Prompt FIR — Retracted confessional statement — Scope — Prosecution case was that the victim, reportedly a student, had brought breakfast for his parents, who were busying plucking dates — Meanwhile, a blast occurred in the vicinity targeting an F.C. (Frontier Corps) vehicle; in response, two F.C. personnel came to the dates orchard and dragged the victim, a helpless, empty-handed poor young boy, on the nearby road and the accused, their third fellow made as many as eight fires, even though the victim’s elder parents begged for his life — Still, the accused had no mercy and killed their child in front of them — Validity — FIR was promptly lodged, naming the accused as the sole perpetrator of the murder — Specific allegations in the FIR accused the appellant of causing injuries to the deceased, which were corroborated by consistent statements from three eye-witnesses — The motive appeared to be clear and unquestioned hostility — Medical evidence supported the eye-witness accounts — Accused, during his statement under section 342, CrPC, had not contested his identification in the identification parade by the eye-witnesses — Considering these circumstances, the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s involvement in the murder beyond reasonable doubt — Confessional statement of the appellant, supported by various pieces of evidence, remained credible despite the his attempt to retract it — No mitigating circumstance sine qua non for lesser punishment was available — Death sentence of the accused was maintained and the murder reference sent by Trial Court was answered in the affirmative. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]

— S. 302 — Qatl-i-amd — Quantum of sentence — Scope — The normal sentence in a murder case is death — Therefore, while awarding the same, the Court is not obligated to record any reason — On the other hand, although, still, while awarding a lesser sentence, it has to record reasons, equally to prove an offence entailing extreme penalty of death, every possible care and caution has to be adopted; in this behalf, however, when an offence is proved, it has to be met with maximum sentence provided thereof, as such, when an offence is proved against an accused, the Court should never hesitate to award punishment for that offence, even if it is capital punishment. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]

— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

— Ss. 302, 324 & 337D — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and jaifah — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — In the case detailed in the FIR, victim was fatally shot, and his son injured, allegedly by the accused — Despite efforts to record victim’s statement, he succumbed to his injuries before this could occur — The accused was arrested and later led to the recovery of a pistol — The trial court convicted the accused based on prosecution witnesses’ testimony, which the defence counsel contested, citing inconsistencies and absence of key witnesses — However, the court found the prosecution’s evidence compelling, upholding the conviction and sentencing the accused to life imprisonment — The High Court had affirmed the judgment, deeming the recovery of the pistol inconsequential — After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found no grounds for intervention, affirming the conviction and dismissing the appeal. [2024 SCLR 12 = 2023 SCP 305 = 2024 SCMR 67]

— Qatl-i-amd, abetment and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Benefit of doubt — Contradictory evidence — Scope — The prosecution story revealed that the complainant, along with his maternal uncle and others, had come to their native village for offering fateha khawani — Suddenly, the accused and an unknown co-accused arrived at the graveyard armed with weapons and fired multiple shots, resulting in the death of complainant’s maternal uncle and brother — The motive behind the occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, was ongoing disputes regarding rishta — Two eye-witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident — The complainant later revealed the name of a co-accused in a supplementary statement — Further scrutiny revealed that the relationship between the witnesses and the accused was not denied, indicating their familiarity with each other — Despite this, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for not mentioning the name of co-accused in the initial crime report — Additionally, witness testimony regarding the distance from which the accused fired contradicted medical evidence, casting doubt on the veracity of the accounts — The lack of recovery of a crime weapon and disbelief in the alleged motive further weakened the prosecution’s case — Considering these factors, the court emphasized the necessity of corroborating evidence to support witness testimonies — It reiterated the principle that convictions must be based on unimpeachable evidence and resolved in favour of the accused in case of doubt — Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the accused was acquitted, with the impugned judgment set aside. [2024 SCLR 29 = 2024 SCMR 156 = 2023 SCP 332]

— Qatl-i-amd — Mitigating circumstances — Scope — In the absence of pre-meditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution, the same may be considered as the mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving the capital punishment. [2024 SCLR 23 = 2024 SCMR 128 = 2023 SCP 370]

— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

— Ss. 302, 324, 452 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Trial Court convicted five accused for murder and causing injuries — High Court acquitted three co-accused and commuted the death sentences of remaining two accused to life imprisonment — Two convicts filed further appeals to the Supreme Court, while the complainant also filed petitions challenging the acquittal of co-accused and seeking an increase in the sentences of the convicted individuals — During the pendency of the appeal, one of the convicts passed away in jail, leading to the abatement of his appeal — After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court observed several issues with the prosecution’s evidence — The firearms recovered from the accused were not sent for forensic analysis, which cast doubt on the evidence — Additionally, the complainant, who was an eyewitness, did not receive any injuries despite being close to the incident, raising questions about his presence at the scene — There were also contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses — Given these issues, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused — As a result, convict was acquitted, and the complainant’s appeals were dismissed. [2025 SCLR 6 = 2025 SCMR 45 = 2024 SCP 324]

— Ss. 302 & 324 — Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Appellant was alleged to have murdered the son of complainant and attempted at his life as well as that of an eye-witness — Complainant and eye-witness testified, describing how appellant, a co-villager, entered the shop armed and opened fire, killing deceased — Both witnesses affirmed the presence of adequate lighting and cited a dispute over women as the motive — Despite rigorous cross-examination, the defense could not discredit their testimonies — The court found that the consistent accounts of both eyewitnesses, corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence, eliminated any reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt — Appellant’s alibi, presented two years post-arrest, lacked credibility and supporting evidence, leading the court to dismiss his appeal and confirm his death sentence. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]

— Ss. 302, 324 & 337D — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and jaifah — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — In the case detailed in the FIR, victim was fatally shot, and his son injured, allegedly by the accused — Despite efforts to record victim’s statement, he succumbed to his injuries before this could occur — The accused was arrested and later led to the recovery of a pistol — The trial court convicted the accused based on prosecution witnesses’ testimony, which the defence counsel contested, citing inconsistencies and absence of key witnesses — However, the court found the prosecution’s evidence compelling, upholding the conviction and sentencing the accused to life imprisonment — The High Court had affirmed the judgment, deeming the recovery of the pistol inconsequential — After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found no grounds for intervention, affirming the conviction and dismissing the appeal. [2024 SCLR 12 = 2023 SCP 305 = 2024 SCMR 67]

— Ss. 302, 324 & 337D — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and jaifah — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — In the case detailed in the FIR, victim was fatally shot, and his son injured, allegedly by the accused — Despite efforts to record victim’s statement, he succumbed to his injuries before this could occur — The accused was arrested and later led to the recovery of a pistol — The trial court convicted the accused based on prosecution witnesses’ testimony, which the defence counsel contested, citing inconsistencies and absence of key witnesses — However, the court found the prosecution’s evidence compelling, upholding the conviction and sentencing the accused to life imprisonment — The High Court had affirmed the judgment, deeming the recovery of the pistol inconsequential — After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found no grounds for intervention, affirming the conviction and dismissing the appeal. [2024 SCLR 12 = 2023 SCP 305 = 2024 SCMR 67]

— S. 409 — Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 — Criminal breach of trust — Criminal misconduct — Scope — The petitioner, an employee of the Utility Stores Corporation, was convicted of breach of trust and embezzlement after failing to uphold integrity in his carrier job — He did not plead guilty but opted for a no-contest stance, hoping for a reduction in his sentence — By depositing the embezzled amount, he sought to resolve the case to support his family, particularly his ailing wife — Considering that the act did not harm the public at large and the financial loss was recovered, the Court exercised discretion to reduce his sentence — While upholding his conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Court reduced his punishment to the period already served and significantly lowered the fines imposed — Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with modification in quantum of sentence. [2025 SCLR 15 = 2025 SCMR 100 = 2024 SCP 350]

452. House­trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits house­trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

— Ss. 302, 324, 452 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt and common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Trial Court convicted five accused for murder and causing injuries — High Court acquitted three co-accused and commuted the death sentences of remaining two accused to life imprisonment — Two convicts filed further appeals to the Supreme Court, while the complainant also filed petitions challenging the acquittal of co-accused and seeking an increase in the sentences of the convicted individuals — During the pendency of the appeal, one of the convicts passed away in jail, leading to the abatement of his appeal — After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court observed several issues with the prosecution’s evidence — The firearms recovered from the accused were not sent for forensic analysis, which cast doubt on the evidence — Additionally, the complainant, who was an eyewitness, did not receive any injuries despite being close to the incident, raising questions about his presence at the scene — There were also contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses — Given these issues, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused — As a result, convict was acquitted, and the complainant’s appeals were dismissed. [2025 SCLR 6 = 2025 SCMR 45 = 2024 SCP 324]

— Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes — Search to be made in presence of witnesses — Appreciation of evidence — Benefit of doubt — Scope — The case involves an appellant charged under section 489-B, P.P.C. for allegedly possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes — The prosecution’s case hinges on the recovery of currency notes from the appellant’s possession during a police patrolling operation — However, crucially, none of the prosecution witnesses testified that the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were fake — Mere possession of forged currency notes is not an offense unless the accused knew or had reason to believe they were forged — Moreover, the prosecution’s reliance on a certificate from the State Bank of Pakistan to prove the authenticity of the currency notes is undermined by delays in sending the notes for verification and the absence of the issuing officer’s testimony — This procedural lapse diminishes the evidentiary value of the certificate — Additionally, there are discrepancies regarding the identification and denomination of the recovered currency notes, which were not mentioned in the charge or confronted to the appellant during interrogation, further weakening the prosecution’s case — Furthermore, there are violations of procedural requirements such as the absence of independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery process, as mandated by section 103, CrPC — The failure to comply with this provision casts doubt on the integrity of the recovery operation — In light of these legal and procedural deficiencies, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — As a result, the appellant’s appeal is allowed, and the judgment convicting him is set aside, leading to his acquittal and release from custody. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]

— Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes — Scope — In order to constitute offence under section 489-B, P.P.C. it is necessary that the person from whose possession any fake currency is recovered, must have knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes in question are forged or counterfeit. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]

489F. Dishonestly issuing a cheque.—Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re­payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.

——–

— S. 489-F — Dishonestly issuing a cheque — Scope — Section 489-F of PPC is not a provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount, rather for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings provide remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of CPC. [2023 SCLR 71 = 2023 SCMR 2122 = 2023 SCP 249]

Dishonestly issuing a cheque — Bail, grant of — Scope — Accused sought post-arrest bail in an FIR — As per the contents of the crime report, the accused and the complainant had business relations — The complainant gave a certain amount to the petitioner for doing business on the pretext that whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same with the complainant — Allegedly, the accused earned a profit and gave three cheques to the complainant for the amount but they were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank — However, stance of the accused was that the cheques were not issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation and the same were issued in respect of the joint business — Admittedly, the accused and the complainant were in business relations — In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F, PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence — The accused was behind the bars for the last about five months — Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC was three years and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, CrPC — All the material was in documentary shape; the investigation was complete and the accused was no more required for further investigation — Case of the accused squarely fell within the ambit of Section 497(2), CrPC entitling for further inquiry into his guilt — Accused was admitted to bail. [2023 SCLR 71 = 2023 SCMR 2122 = 2023 SCP 249]

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

——–

— Criminal intimidation — Scope — Whenever an overt act is materialized and ended into an overt act, the provision of Section 506, PPC would not be applicable and the only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. [2023 SCLR 62 = 2023 SCMR 2081 = 2023 SCP 248]

511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or for a shorter term. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one­half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine daman as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustrations

(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.

(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section.

———-

— Attempt to commit offence — Scope — Section 511, PPC is applied only where the prosecution is not certain about the offences. [2023 SCLR 62 = 2023 SCMR 2081 = 2023 SCP 248]