2025 PLP 1888 (YLR)

Raza Ali Khan, J.

Both the titled appeals have been addressed against the consolidated judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court (hereinafter to be referred as High Court) dated 03.08.2022, passed in Cr. Appeals Nos. 02 and 03 of 2018.

2. The combined facts of the titled appeals (supra) are that Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, son of Said Muhammad, caste Bhatti, resident of Darkoti, Tehsil Khoiratta, District Kotli, presented a written application at Police Station Khuiratta on February 9, 2014 alleging therein that he resides in the village Darkoti, and his grandson, Gulfaraz, runs a shop under the name of Madni General Store at Dabar Mai Toti Sahiba. In routine Gulfaraz typically returns home between 9:00 to 10:00 P.M. On February 9, 2014, at approximately 9:10 P.M., Gulfaraz contacted him via telephone, informing him that he was on his way to home and asked him for preparing dinner. Around 9:30 P.M., while at home, the complainant heard the sound of three gunshots. Concerned as this coincided with Gulfaraz's expected return time, the complainant and his family rushed to the spot where the shots were fired. Upon arriving at the scene, they found Gulfaraz's motorcycle stained with blood. Accompanied by his family and local residents the complainant began searching for Gulfaraz. Following a trail of bloodstains, they arrived near Raja Zaffar's house, where they found Gulfaraz lying in a pool of blood. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where the attending doctor declared him dead. The complainant suspected Muhammad Ashfaq, with whom he had a longstanding enmity for committing the offense. Consequently, FIR No. 18/2014 was registered at Police Station Khuiratta on February 9, 2014, in the offence under Section 302 APC. During the investigation, the accused, Muhammad Ashfaq, was found innocent and exonerated by the police under Section 169, Cr.P.C. However, further investigation revealed the involvement of accused Usman, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and Saqlain in the commission of offences, who were later arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan under Section 173, Cr.P.C. in the District Criminal Court on April 21, 2014. The accused were charged under Sections 302, 341, 201, 204, 109 and 34 of the APC, along with Section 17(4) of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 (EHA) and Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965. The trial court framed charges against the accused under Section 265-D Cr.P.C. on April 21, 2014, whereby accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was directed to present its evidence. Upon conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. on February 13, 2018. The accused again denied the allegations, reiterated their innocence and opted not to present any evidence in their defense or record statements under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted Usman and Inzamam-ul-Haq under Section 302 APC by sentencing them to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment each. They were further convicted under Section 394 APC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Additionally, they were sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment under Section 341 APC and two years simple imprisonment under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965. The appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 1,000,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. However, they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 109, 201 and 204 APC. The co-accused, Saqlain, was acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The judgment was delivered on February 28, 2018. Aggrieved by the judgment, both parties preferred appeals before the learned High Court. After hearing the parties, the High Court dismissed the appeals through its judgment dated August 3, 2022.

3. Raja Inamullah Khan, the learned Advocate for the convict-appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 22/22), argued that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and law, rendering it untenable. He contended that the appellants, along with another co-accused, were falsely implicated in the case due to personal enmity. He further argued that the recovery of the alleged weapon of offense and other materials was rendered doubtful during the trial proceedings. According to him, it was a blind murder and an unseen occurrence, as neither the complainant nor other witnessed the incident or the convicts near the place of occurrence. The learned counsel asserted that the prosecution planted witnesses after a considerable delay, not recorded their statements without plausible explanation, thereby undermining their reliability. He emphasized that the witnesses were interested and inimical towards appellants having made significant improvements in their statements, further reducing their credibility. Procedural irregularities were also highlighted, particularly in the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where the prescribed procedure was not followed. He pointed out that the statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C remained lying in the Magistrate's office for over three years, creating serious doubts about their authenticity. Furthermore, he argued that the allegation of pre-planning and conspiracy with co-accused Saqlain was not substantiated in either the trial or appellate courts. He criticized that the Courts relied on the statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C, to convict the appellants while disbelieving the same statement against Saqlain. The case, he maintained was based on circumstantial evidence which was saddled with major contradictions and therefore failed to inspire confidence. Significant contradictions in the statements which were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, especially, after an unexplained delay rendered these statement unreliable for securing a conviction. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant and witnesses initially nominated another accused in the FIR but later shifted the allegations upon the appellants, this shifting, he argued was afterthought and unreliable. He also pointed out that the appellants did not use or spend Rs. 81,500 allegedly robbed but were instead working at a brick kiln in Mirpur, at the time of their arrest. The police failed to produce any independent witness from the locality to corroborate the arrest further weakens the prosecution's case. He criticized the trial and appellate courts for misreading, misinterpreting, and misconstruing the prosecution's evidence. The Call Data Record (CDR), which was a key piece of evidence, was fabricated and not proved during the trial, failing to establish any link between accused Saqlain and the convict-appellants. He also questioned the recovery of the pistol from Usman, arguing that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that no crime bullet was fired from the weapon. The injury attributed to Inzamam-ul-Haq at the alleged place of occurrence was also doubtful. Based on these arguments, he contended that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction of the appellants unsustainable. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate relied on several precedents including PLJ 1987 Quetta 96, PLD 1987 FSC 43, 1995 PCr.LJ 159, 2022 SCR 1541, 2016 SCR 1467, 2007 PCr.LJ 1792, 1982 SCMR 321, 2022 SCR 1489, PLD 1978 Pesh. 38, 1991 PCr.LJ 1768 and 2010 SCMR 1959.

4. The learned Advocate for the complainant-respondents, Mr. Mehboob Ellahi Chaudhary, argued that the judgment delivered by the High Court is liable to be modified to enhance the sentence. He submitted that on February 9, 2014, the accused Usman, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and Saqlain conspired to robe the deceased, Gulfraz, a businessman. To execute their plan, Muhammad Usman and Inzamam-ul-Haq, armed with 30-bore pistols, positioned themselves strategically while Saqlain was sent to Darbar Mai Toti Bazar to monitor Gulfraz's movements. As soon as Gulfraz set for home, Saqlain informed the other co-accused. Upon reaching their position, Usman intercepted Gulfaraz's motorcycle while Inzamam-ul-Haq switched off the vehicle. Usman aiming a pistol at Gulfraz's head, demanding his belongings, while Inzamam-ul-Haq tried to snatch the deceased's bag. When Gulfraz resisted Usman fired a shot at his head, followed by another shot that struck his ribs and exit through his abdomen, incidentally injuring Inzamam-ul-Haq in the left leg. The victim fell to the ground, and Inzamam-ul-Haq fired a third shot, hitting Gulfraz in the arm. The convict then fled away with the deceased's bag containing cash, mobile phones, and other valuables. Gulfraz succumbed to the firearm injuries. Notably, Inzamam-ul-Haq sustained an injury during the same incident due to Usman's second shot. The learned Advocate contended that the case is one of circumstantial evidence however, the prosecution presented a complete chain of evidence, each link directly connecting the accused to the offence and establishing their guilt beyond any shadow of doubt. He highlighted that the prosecution's evidence which includes the recovery of weapons, stolen articles, the FSL report, post-mortem report/ findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and these pieces of evidence coupled with Inzamam-ul-Haq injury, corroborated the prosecution narrative and guilt of convicts. The learned Advocate further argued that the trial court and the High Court correctly concluded that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, they erred in awarding lesser punishment under Section 302 APC and Section 17(4) EHA, without providing cogent reasoning. He emphasized that the evidence demonstrated that the accused had formed a clear intention to commit murder when the deceased resisted their robbery attempt. The deliberate and fatal shots fired by the accused established mens rea for murder, fulfilling the elements of Section 302 APC. Despite the gravity of the crime, the courts below awarded lesser punishments, which, failed to align with the deterrent theory of punishment and do not reflect the seriousness of the offense, which had severely shocked societal conscious. The learned Advocate concluded that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and that the sentences of the convicts should be enhanced to refleet the gravity of the crime and serve as a deterrent. In support of his arguments, he relied on the precedents including 2011 SCR 431, PLD 2007 SC(AJ&K) 27, 2014 SCR 1585, 2011 SCMR 429, 2022 SCR 365, 2023 SCR 514, 2019 SCR 893 and PLD 1995 SC 343.

5. Mr. Ahmed Saad, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State, contended that both; the learned High Court and the learned District Criminal Court, Kotli, unequivocally observed and declared that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. However, despite such findings, the Courts awarded a lesser punishment under Section 302 APC and Section 17(4) EHA, without assigning any cogent reasoning. He asserted that the prosecution has successfully established the case through cogent, confidence-inspiring, and tangible evidence, warranting the imposition of a major punishment under the aforementioned offences. He further submitted that the High Court failed to duly appreciate the weight and significance of the prosecution's evidence. The learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that the motive set-up by the prosecution was convincingly established against the accused. It was proved that the accused had deliberately weighted the deceased with the intent to plunder money and other valuable possessions. Upon resistance by the deceased, the accused made a caulated decision to kill him, firing directly at him with the clear intent to commit murder. These actions, he contended, unequivocally fulfilled the ingredients of Section 300 APC, thereby establishing the mens rea for murder. He further argued that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborated the prosecution's narrative and substantiated the allegations against the accused. The learned High Court however, misinterpreted Section 25 of the AJK Islamic Tazirati (Qawanin Nafaaz) Act, 1974, which vests the Court with ample authority to enhance sentences. The Bench seized with was satisfied that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, however, it failed to fully appreciate and apply the relevant penal provisions. Consequently the High Court declined to enhance the sentence and dismissed the appeal filed for enhancement of sentence. The learned Assistant Advocate-General concluded that this approach warrants intervention by this august Court. He urged that the sentence awarded to the convicts should be enhanced to reflect the gravity of the offense and ensure justice.

6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully examining the available case record, it is evident that the present case pertains to a blind murder with no direct evidence, relying entirely on circumstantial evidence. While there are no legal impediment to convict an accused solely based on circumstantial evidence including the imposition of the death penalty, it is crucial to adhere to the principles established by Superior Courts in evaluating such evidence. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. All established facts must unequivocally support the inference of the accused's culpability with the chain of events linking the offense to the accused being unbroken, indispensable and interwoven. Circumstantial evidence must manifest as a coherent with chain, one end of firmly anchored to the body of the deceased and the other inexorably tied to the accused's involvement.

7. It is a deeply ingrained principle in the realm of law and justice that individuals cannot be convicted of crime based solely on assumptions or conjectures, without legal admissible evidence of impeccable quality. Similarly, the gruesome or abhorrent nature of a crime should not distract a Court from its obligation to meticulously evaluate evidence and afford the accused the presumption of reasonable doubt, a right that is inherent and inviolable. Any influence stemming from the nature of crime or external factors may lead to erroneous conclusion, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. In the cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the courts must exercise heightened caution and vigilance, especially when there is a risk of the fabricated or flawed evidence. For an inference of guilt to be justified, circumstantial evidence must meet a standard that leaves no room for doubt regarding the accused's innocence. Should such evidence fall short of this benchmark reliance relying on it, particularly in cases involving capital punishment would be perilous. Thus, it is prudent wiser and judicious to refrain from relying solely on circumstantial evidence to ensure the attainment of justice. Our view is reinforced by the case reported as The State v. Mst. Falawat Jan and another, wherein this Court observed: - "It may be stated here that in case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence should be of such a degree and character that it should exclude the possibility of 25 innocence of an accused. Besides, it should link together all the chains of the prosecution story so as to convince the Court to reach an irresistible conclusion that the accused person was the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt. The evidence in the instant case is not only insufficient but the same is of such a nature that conviction is not sustainable upon the same: for instance, the garments which allegedly belong to the accused-respondent were not found blood-stained. Thus, mere production of the clothes of the respondent, Muhammad Khaliq, by his wife, is no evidence against him. Similarly, the recovery of knife is not only suspicious, as indicated above, but it was also not proved to have been stained with human blood." Similarly, in the case reported as Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar and another, it has been held by this Court that:- "

6. Before dealing with the testimony of the witnesses it may be observed that circumstantial evidence means evidence afforded by testimony other than the eye-witnesses which bear upon a fact or other subsidiary facts which are relied upon as consistent that no result other than truth of principal fact and facts shall be so proved that they shall not leave any possibility of innocence of accused. And this possibility shall be of such a high degree and standard that a prudent man after considering all the facts and circumstances is able to reach at the conclusion that he is justified in holding the accused guilty and from the evidence no other inference can be drawn except the guilt of accused. The circumstances from which the inference adverse to accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond all doubts."

8. The story setup by the prosecution is that Gulfraz, deceased, was a shopkeeper who owned/run a store situated in Mai Toli, Darbar Bazaar. It was his routine to return home around 10 PM daily. On the evening of February 14, 2009, at approximately 9:10 PM, he contacted his wife to inform her that he was on his way to home and requested for making of dinner. At about 9:30 PM, the complainant, who was at home, reported hearing the sound of three gunshots fired in rapid succession. Given the timing and Gulfraz's usual return scheduled, the complainant and his family rushed toward the direction of the gunfire. Upon arrival at a nearby location, they discovered Gulfraz's motorcycle on the ground, bloodied. The complainant, assisted by neighbors, began searching for Gulfraz and traced a blood trail leading near the residence of Raja Zafar, son of Raja Taj. They found Gulfraz in a severely injured and semi-conscious state. Immediate efforts were made to transport him to RHC Khuiratta, where he was pronounced dead by the attending medical officer.

9. The investigation employed advanced technical methods, leading to the arrest of Muhammad Usman and Inzamam-ul-Haq. During interrogation, it was revealed that they, along with an accomplice Saqlain, had conspired to rob Gulfraz, a businessman, on February 14, 2009. As part of their plan, Muhammad Usman and Inzamam-ul-Haq armed themselves with 30-bore pistols and positioned themselves strategically along Gulfraz's regular route. Saqlain monitored Gulfraz's movements from Darbar Mai Touti Bazaar and informed his accomplices when Gulfraz closed his shop and headed to home on his motorbike. At the designated location, the accused intercepted Gulfraz. Usman aimed a pistol at Gulfraz's head, demanding his belongings, while Inzamam-ul-Haq, positioned on the opposite side, grabbed Gulfraz's hand shoulder bag. When Gulfraz resisted, Usman fired a shot at his head and another at his left side, passing through his abdomen injured Inzamam-ul-Haq's left thigh. Gulfraz fell down, and a third shot, fired by Inzamam, struck his upper right arm. The accused fled away while taking Gulfraz's shoulder bag containing cash, a mobile phone, and other valuables.

10. Further investigation led to the recovery of Muhammad Usman's 30-bore pistol with three live bullets, along with the stolen items, which included Rs. 93,000 in cash, two Nokia 1280 mobile phones, a face mask, and the handbag containing Gulfraz's vehicle registration book, identity card, and visiting cards. Similarly, Inzamam-ul-Haq's disclosures resulted into recovery of another 30-bore pistol, Rs. 90,000 in cash, and two mobile phones, Nokia 1280 and Nokia 5320, along with a blood-stained trouser, burnt registration book fragments, and ashes of a shirt. Additionally, during surgery, a bullet was extracted from Inzamam's thigh which further corroborated the prosecution's account.

11. The complainant's testimony aligned with the initial report, detailing that he heard the sound of gunshots and subsequently discovered Gulfraz's bloodstained motorbike. Witnesses, including Younas, Rehana Kausar (the widow), Anwar Begum, and Matloob Hussain, corroborated these facts, stating that they heard the sound of gunshots and found Gulfraz critically injured. Gulfraz's call to his wife at 9:10 PM was verified through call records, establishing a timeline of events. Witnesses Talat and Arshad Mehmood reported seeing the accused near the crime scene prior to the incident, and Muhammad Aslam witnessed Inzamam-ul-Haq limping near Chattar Bazaar at 11 PM, which corresponded with the injury timeline. Medical evidence adduced by Dr. Sajid Manzoor confirmed that the bullet extracted from Inzamam-ul-Haq's thigh was consistent with the incident. Dr. Zubair corroborated this timeline during cross-examination. The arrests of Inzamam-ul-Haq from Islamgarh and Usman from Bohar Colony, Mirpur, was conducted on February 26, 2009, as testified by investigators Head Constable Khalil Ahmed and ASI Sadaqat Hussain. Stolen items, including mobile phones and weapon of offence, were recovered during these arrests and identified as belonging to Gulfraz. Dr. Zubair's post-mortem report substantiated the cause of death as gunfire injuries, affirming the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, confessional statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C made by the accused corroborated the evidence and aligned with the sequence of events detailed by the prosecution. The prosecution successfully demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Muhammad Usman and Inzamam-ul-Haq, with premeditated intent, intercepted and murdered Gulfraz during a robbery using illegal firearms. The evidence, including witness testimonies, recoveries, and medical findings, collectively substantiates the charges against the accused, however, to the extent of accused-Saqlain, the prosecution failed to prove his involvement in the case, hence, was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

12. The learned counsel for the convict-appellants argued that the prosecution's case is saddled with doubts, suggesting that the narrative presented is an afterthought intended to falsely implicate the convict-appellants. He emphasized that, as the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a seamless chain of events linking the accused to the crime. However, he contended that several critical links are missing in the present case, and such gaps must benefit the accused. He further asserted that neither the trial court nor the High Court considered these deficiencies while delivering the impugned judgments. We agree with the learned counsel's assertion that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, any missing links in the chain should benefit the accused but it is also incumbent upon the defense to demonstrate either that the incident did not occur as alleged by the prosecution or that the convict did not commit the offense. Where the prosecution has otherwise established its case against the accused, any lapses or errors on the part of the prosecution do not automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal. Instead, such lapses may warrant the consideration of mitigating circumstances by the court. Thus, the critical issue is whether the points raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants merit serious consideration and whether mitigating circumstances exist that may justify a reduction in the sentences awarded to the convicts. To resolve this, we will examine each point raised by the learned counsel in detail and address them accordingly.

13. The learned counsel for the convict-appellants raised the first point concerning alleged material contradictions in the witnesses' statements. It was argued that the witnesses claimed that incident occurred at around 9:00 or 9:15 PM, but no call was made from Saqlain's mobile phone at the time. Similarly, regarding the arrest of the convict Inzamam-ul-Haq, witness ASI Sadaqat ASI stated the time of apprehension as 1:30 AM, whereas SHO Sohail Yousaf mentioned it as 1:10 AM. In our view, these are not material contradictions but minor discrepancies regarding the exact timings, which are natural and to be expected, particularly when statements are recorded years after the incident, often three to four years in such cases. Minor variances of this nature do not necessarily cast doubt on the overall credibility of the witness and prosecution's case. While such inconsistencies may raise questions about specific aspects of the evidence, they do not, in isolation, undermine the entirety of the case. The courts have recognized that minor lapses in recollection, especially concerning precise timings, are common in witness testimonies. These variances are insufficient to exonerate the accused when the broader evidence firmly connects them to the crime. At the best, such discrepancies could be considered mitigating factors if they affect the substantive elements of the prosecution's case. However, in the present case, the evidence against the accused remains robust and cohesive despite these minor discrepancies. The argument, therefore, lacks merit and cannot be made a basis to challenge the conviction.

14. The second argument presented by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants was that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are close relatives of the complainant, and no independent or impartial witnesses were included. This contention, however, lacks merit. It is settled principle of law that mere relationship of a witness with the complainant does not render his testimony unreliable or unworthy of consideration. The testimony of a witness can only be discredited if it is proven that the witness harbored animosity or malice towards the accused giving rise to a motive for false implication. In the present case, the defense has failed to present any evidence or proof demonstrating that the witnesses were inimical or bore ill will towards the accused. In absence of such evidence, the credibility of witness remains intact. Thus, this argument does not hold merit and cannot form a basis for rejecting the evidence presented by the prosecution. This Court in its authoritative judgment reported as Syed Kamran Hussain Shah v. State, has held as under: "

23. Here another aspect is worth-understanding that the term 'related' should not be confused with the term 'interested' because both are entirely distinct concepts. There is considerable distinction between the terms 'related and 'interested', because the interested witness need not necessarily, be a related but it is the person who has such a motive on account of enmity or any other consideration that due to such enmity or consideration, he has prepared himself to depose falsely. The term 'related' is positive in its meaning while the term 'interested' is negative in its meaning because the term 'interested' has a concept to gain favour for whom or what he/she is interested with. Although the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove truthfulness of a related witness but where the defense claims the witness as 'interested', burden shifts upon defense to establish that such witness had a motive on account of enmity or any other consideration which compelled him to depose falsely against the accused."

15. The most pivotal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants is that the accused's statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions and were forwarded to the trial court after a delay of more than three years, thereby diminishing their evidentiary value. Before delving into the processes that Magistrates undertake during investigations and to better understand the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to reproduce Section 164 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:- "

164. Power to record statements and confessions.-(1) Any Magistrate of the First Class and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government may, if he is not a police-officer, record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. (1-A) Any such statement may be recorded by such Magistrate in the presence of the accused, and the accused given an opportunity of cross-examining the witness making the statement. (2) Such statement shall be recorded in such of the manners hereinafter prescribed for recording evidence as is, in his opinion best fitted for the circumstances of the case. Such confessions shall be recorded and signed in the manner provided in Section 364, and such statements or confessions shall then be forwarded to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried. (3) A Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him and no Magistrate shall record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reasons to believe that it was made voluntarily; and, when he records any confession, he shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect: - "I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him." Explanation: It is not necessary that the Magistrate receiving and recording a confession or statement should be a Magistrate having Jurisdiction in the case."

16. Section 164 Cr.P.C, (supra), confers specific powers on Magistrates to record statements and confessions during an investigation or before the commencement of an inquiry or trial. This provision is integral to ensure the admissibility of evidence while simultaneously safeguarding individuals' rights. It specifies that a Magistrate of the Ist Class, or a IInd Class specially empowered by the Provincial Government, may record such statements or confessions, provided they are not a police officer. This requirement highlights the importance of neutrality and impartiality expected in judicial proceedings. The provision further mandates that if a statement is recorded in the presence of the accused, the accused must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness making the statement. This ensures that the accused's right to challenge the evidence against him is preserved, upholding principles of fairness and natural justice. Statements or confessions must be recorded following prescribed procedures. The Magistrate must adopt the method best suited to the circumstances of the case, and confessions must adhere to the specific procedural requirements outlined in Section 364, Cr.P.C. Once recorded, these documents are forwarded to the Magistrate who will inquire into or try the case, ensuring the proper custodial chain and judicial scrutiny. A significant safeguard within Section 164, Cr.P.C is the requirement that confessions be made voluntarily. Before recording a confession, the Magistrate must explain to the individual that they are not obligated to confess and that any confession made may be used as evidence against them. The Magistrate must further question the individual to ascertain that the confession is made of his own free will and without any coercion or undue influence. If these conditions are not met, the confession cannot be recorded. Additionally, the Magistrate must append a memorandum to the recorded confession, stating that the individual was informed of his rights, that the confession was made voluntarily, and that it was taken in the presence and hearing of the Magistrate. The memorandum must confirm that the confession was read over to the individual and verified by him as accurate, providing a full and truthful account of their statement. The explanation to Section 164, Cr.P.C clarifies that the Magistrate recording the statement or confession need not have jurisdiction over the case. This flexibility allow any qualified Magistrate, regardless of territorial or subject- matter jurisdiction, to record the statement or confession, thereby ensuring procedural convenience.

17. Under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., once a statement is recorded, it must be signed by the Magistrate in accordance with the procedure outlined in Section 164 Cr.P.C. and promptly forwarded to the trial court or the Magistrate responsible for the trial or inquiry. These statutory provisions aim to preserve the integrity and reliability of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., ensuring that procedural safeguards are adhered to and rights of all parties are protected. Non-compliance with these procedures undermines the voluntariness and authenticity of the statement, potentially leading to significant implications for the trial's outcome. Procedural lapses in recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., along with delays in transmitting them, can cast doubt on their credibility and, in certain instances, lead to a miscarriage of justice. In the present case, it is acknowledged that the statements recorded by the Magistrate remained in the Magistrate's office for an extended period constituting a significant lapse that cannot be ignored lightly. However, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court was not based solely on the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Instead, these statements were utilized as corroborative evidence in conjunction with other material on record. When the prosecution's case against the convicts is otherwise substantiated, a procedural irregularity in recording the statement does not automatically warrant an acquittal. Such violations may however, treated as mitigating factors, potentially benefiting the accused in terms of sentencing. This Court in a recent case titled Abdul Majeed v. Abdul Sammad and others, has addressed these concerns and laid down the principle on the matter. For clarity relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below for better appreciation: "Under section 164(2), Cr.P.C., once a statement is recorded, it must be signed by the Magistrate in accordance with the procedure outlined in section 164, Cr.P.C and then promptly forwarded to trial Court or the Magistrate responsible for trial or inquiry. The purpose of these statutory provisions is to maintain the integrity and reliability of the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C to ensure that justice is served in timely manner. Failure to follow the procedure jeopardizes the voluntariness and authenticity of the statement, which can have serious implication for the outcome of the trial, procedural lapses while recording statement under section 164, Cr.P.C and delays in transmitting these statements may give rise to doubt about their credibility and in some cases result in a miscarriage of justice. To adhere to these recurring issues, it is essential that: (i) Magistrates, specially executive Magistrates must be reminded of their statutory obligations to follow the procedure set out in section 364, Cr.P.C when recording the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C and to forward the statements promptly as required by section 164(2) Cr.P.C, (ii) The learned High Court should take the note of this pattern of non-compliance and issue clear directions to all Magistrates, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and forwarding statements under section 164, Cr.P.C without unnecessary delay, (iii) A system of accountability should be put in place, where lapses on the part of the Magistrates in following the required procedure are thoroughly investigated and appropriate action is taken against those found to be negligent, and; (iv) Magistrates should undergo regular training sessions to refresh their understanding of procedures under sections 164, Cr.P.C and 364 Cr.P.C. By addressing this procedure shortcoming, the judicial system can safeguard the rights of the people and uphold the principle of fair trial and justice."

18. Another significant argument advanced by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants concerns the FSL report which allegedly casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case, by contradicting the allegations regarding the gunfire attributed to the convict-appellants. To address this contention, we have carefully scrutinized the FSL report alongside the relevant record. According to the prosecution's narrative, convict Muhammad Usman fired two shots at the victim-one striking the head and the other hitting the ribs, exiting through the abdomen and injuring Inzamam-ul-Haq. Meanwhile, convict Inzamam-ul-Haq allegedly fired one shot at the victim, hitting him in the right arm. Three bullets in total were reportedly discharged during the incident. Furthermore, two thirty-bore pistols were recovered on the pointation of the convicts. The FSL report, found on page 273 of the trial court's file reads as following findings: "Description of Evidence Submitted The following evidence items were submitted on 17.03.2014 by Kabir Hussain Shah (103/C) along with the request of SP Kotli (AK) for Comparison of Cartridge Cases and Bullet wit Submitted Firearms. Parcel # Description Parcel-1 One sealed cloth bag containing one 30 caliber pistol (Item IP) with magazine having serial number oblitereted, marked as 21172/14 along with its item number, duly signed (said to be recovered from Usman) Parcel-2 One sealed cloth bag containing one 30 caliber pistol (Item 2P) with magazine having serial number oblitereted, marked as 21172/14 along with its item number, duly signed (said to be recovered from Inzamam Ul Haq) Parcel-3 One sealed cloth bag containing one 30 caliber Bullet (Item B1), marked as B1/21172/14 duly signed Parcel-4 One sealed cloth bag containing three 30 caliber cartridge cases (Items C1 to C3), each marked as 21172/14 along with its item number, duly signed Conclusion The item IP pistol was examined and found to be in mechanical operating condition with safety features functioning properly. The item 2P pistol was examined and found to be in mechanical operating condition with safety features functioning properly. The items C1 and C2 cartridge cases were identified as having been fired in the item 2P pistol. Because of the lack of sufficient suitable corresponding microscopic markings, it was not possible to either identify or eliminate the item C3 cartridge case as having been fired in the items 1P or 2P pistols. The item B1 bullet was examined and found to be not suitable for comparison"

19. The Examiner analyzed evidence submitted in connection with the case involving two pistols, a bullet, and three cartridges. The pistols were recovered from Usman (1P) and Inzamam (2P), both of which were found to be in working condition with their safety features intact. The analysis revealed that cartridge cases C1 and C2 were fired from Inzamam-ul-Haq's pistol (2P). While, none of the bullet empty was found to have been fired from Usman's pistol (1P). Additionally, cartridge case C3 could not be conclusively matched to either firearm due to insufficient microscopic markings. The bullet (B1) was also examined but was deemed unsuitable for comparison, likely due to deformation or other damage. The findings of the FSL report highlight notable discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative. It was alleged that Inzamam-ul-Haq fired one shot and Usman fired two gunshots. However, the forensic evidence indicates that two shots were fired from Inzamam-ul-Haq's pistol, whereas no shot was fired from Usman's pistol. This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of the prosecution's claims. Despite these inconsistencies, there is still supporting evidence, such as the recovery of the pistols from both individuals and the presence of empties at the crime scene, which aligns partially with the events described. The inability to match cartridge case C3 to either pistol could be explained by its deformation or breakage, as mentioned in the FSL report. Nevertheless, in criminal law, any doubt arising from such inconsistencies must favor the accused. While the recovery of weapons and crime scene evidence lends some credibility to the case, the contradictions in the FSL findings somehow weaken the prosecution's story. As a result, the benefit of doubt should favour the accused as a mitigating factor, entitling them to a reduction in their sentences.

20. It is important to note that the trial court, under Section 394, APC, convicted the appellants and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. However, in our opinion, Section 394, APC pertains to voluntarily causing hurt during the commission of robbery. In the present case, the victim succumbed to the injuries, and the convicts have been found guilty under Section 302 APC. Therefore, the offence under Section 394 APC does not constitute.

21. As far the complainant's appeal seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the convicts is concerned, we have already observed in the preceding paragraphs that the evidence presented in the case does not meet the requisite standard for justifying enhancement in the sentences. On the contrary, the mitigating factors discussed earlier entitle the convicts to a reduction in their sentences. Additionally, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, which was intended to support the appeal, having distinguishable facts and circumstances is not applicable to the case in hand.

22. In light of the above detailed discussion, we partially accept the appeal filed by the convict-appellants and modify the impugned judgment of the High Court. The sentence of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to each convict under Section 302, APC is hereby reduced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. However, the other sentences awarded under Section 341, APC, and Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965, shall remain intact. The cross appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed. JK/23/SC(AJ&K) Sentence reduced.