Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Sawab Din and others vs Civil Judge Dera Bugti at Sui and others2022 PLJ Quetta 159 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2022 YLR 1319 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-11
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sanaullah, who was found guilty of murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Uthal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the ocular account, the delay in recording witness statements, and contradictions between the medical evidence and the eyewitness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, had been disbelieved regarding the seven acquitted co-accused, and their testimony lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the nature of the gunshot wounds. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding some co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against others without strong independent corroboration, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon against an accused if those same witnesses have been disbelieved regarding co-accused in the same transaction?
  • Does the absence of blackening or charring around a gunshot wound contradict an ocular account claiming the weapon was fired at close range?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, and what is the consequence of a reasonable doubt arising in the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Station House Officer Police Station Nushki and 3 others2022 MLD 990 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Mst. Razia Bibi and others2022 PLJ Quetta 112 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and 4 others vs The State2022 YLR 1439 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencemedical evidencerelated witnessesacquittal appealdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentences, and a criminal acquittal appeal. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial involving conflicting ocular testimony, delayed police statements, missing independent witnesses, and contradictory medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions among related and interested witnesses, delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without explanation, lack of independent corroboration despite the availability of impartial witnesses, and inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of related witnesses, when uncorroborated by independent evidence and fraught with material contradictions, cannot form the basis of a conviction, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the prosecution's case suffers from multiple serious infirmities. Consequently, the conviction appeals were accepted, the appellants were acquitted, and the revision and acquittal appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when independent witnesses are available but withheld?
  • Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without plausible explanation render the witnesses' testimony suspicious?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Atta vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others2022 PLC (C.S) 1326 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31
  re-employment of retired civil servantscivil servantspromotion blockpublic interestconstitutional petitionBalochistan Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the re-employment of a retired civil servant (respondent No. 3) by the Government of Balochistan, alleging it violated relevant civil servant laws, rules, and judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan by blocking the promotion rights of serving officers. During the proceedings, the respondents stated that the contract period of respondent No. 3 had already expired and the post stood abolished, rendering the specific grievance infructuous. The Balochistan High Court examined the legal framework governing post-retirement re-employment under Section 14 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, Estacode instructions, and established apex court jurisprudence. The Court held that re-employment of retired civil servants must be an exception rather than the rule, permissible only in compelling public interest where qualified substitutes are unavailable, and must not block the legitimate promotion of serving civil servants. The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent authorities to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions and judicial guidelines in any future appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant is permissible as a routine measure or only as an exception in the public interest?
  • Does the re-employment of a retired civil servant against a regular or newly established post violate the fundamental promotion rights of serving civil servants?
  • What are the statutory and judicial prerequisites for re-employing a retired civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ud Din vs Muhi Ud Din and another2022 YLR 2215 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1018 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcotics transportationrecovery from vehiclepossession of charaspolice witnessessafe custody of contrabandpresumption of guiltappeal against conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the transportation of eight kilograms of charas concealed in secret cavities of a vehicle driven by him, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions addressed involve whether the driver of a vehicle can be held legally responsible and in possession of narcotics recovered from the vehicle, whether the non-joinder of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invalidates a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and whether the prosecution successfully proved safe custody and the chain of custody of the recovered contraband. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of a vehicle is presumed to be in control and possession of the vehicle and its contents, that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony remains credible in the absence of proven enmity. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person driving a vehicle held responsible for the transportation and possession of narcotics found concealed within it?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the mandatory joining of private independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of police officials be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 shift the onus to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt once the prosecution discharges its initial burden?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifat Bibi vs Abid Shah and another2022 P Cr. L J 52 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-16
  Criminal Acquittal AppealUnnatural offencesSodomyLimitation periodCondonation of delayMedical jurisprudenceDouble presumption of innocencePenetration
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the limitation period for filing the appeal and whether the prosecution successfully established the offence of sodomy. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding it time-barred as it was filed fifty-three days after the impugned judgment without an application for condonation of delay, violating the requirement to explain each day of delay. On merits, the Court found the prosecution's case deficient. The victim’s testimony lacked necessary corroboration, and the medical evidence was inconclusive, failing to establish penetration, which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, reversible only if the judgment is blatantly perverse. Furthermore, the medical examination failed to adhere to established medical jurisprudence protocols. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine for being time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed after the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay maintainable?
  • Is penetration a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of unnatural offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained on the solitary statement of the victim without corroborative medical evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs Sher Khan and 11 others2022 MLD 1910 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and others vs Syed Muhammad Raheem and others2022 PLD Balochistan 89 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed alias Ahmed Agha vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1126 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-15
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionjudicial confession on oathballistic reportbenefit of the doubtmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recovery of a crime weapon, and Call Data Records. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and admissibility of a retracted confessional statement recorded on oath in violation of Section 5 of the Oaths Act 1873, and the evidentiary value of delayed ballistic reports and recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the confessional statement was involuntary, tainted by police torture, vitiated by the administration of an oath contrary to law, and lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found material flaws in the recovery of the weapon and ballistic analysis. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of administering an oath to an accused person prior to recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory cast doubt on the ballistic report?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as corroborative proof to identify and connect an accused to a crime in the absence of ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Shabir Ahmed2022 MLD 543 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs The State2022 MLD 1570 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31
  Section 342 CrPCincriminating evidencere-examination of accusedSection 540 CrPCcourt witnessfair trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's order rejecting an application to amend the statement of the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Following the recording of the accused's statement and the conclusion of defence evidence, the trial court allowed the complainant's application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to summon a witness who produced an incriminating inquiry report. The core legal question is whether an accused must be re-examined under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when new incriminating evidence is brought on record after the initial statement has been recorded. The Court held that the fundamental purpose of Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is to safeguard the accused's interest by allowing them to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, mandating that the trial court re-examine the accused specifically regarding the new evidence produced by the court witness, and granted the accused the right to produce further defence evidence if desired.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of new evidence via a court witness after the recording of an accused's statement necessitate re-examination of the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to explain incriminating circumstances arising from evidence produced after the closure of the prosecution and defence evidence?
  • Can an accused be permitted to produce further defence evidence if re-examined under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, due to the introduction of new evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Khan Kasi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Quetta and another2022 PCRLJ 887 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-28
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtcivil dispute converted into criminal casemalicious prosecutionabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of FIR No. 92/2020 registered at Police Station Airport Quetta under sections 186, 353, 147, 148, 149 and 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an FIR arising out of a purely civil dispute, characterized by malicious prosecution and where no cognizable offence was made out from the record, could be quashed by the High Court under its inherent powers. The Balochistan High Court accepted the petition and held that since the criminal proceedings were an offshoot of an underlying civil dispute between the parties and a larger constitutional controversy regarding the status of the Defence Housing Authority, allowing the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court laid down the principle that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR in exceptional cases without requiring the aggrieved party to first exhaust alternate remedies before the trial court, particularly when the dispute is civil in nature and no offence is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR without waiting for the trial court to pass orders under section 249-A or 265-K?
  • Can criminal proceedings stemming from a civil dispute involving land demarcation and housing schemes be sustained as a bona fide prosecution?
  • What are the main considerations for a High Court when determining whether the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah and others vs The State2022 YLR 1222 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31
  narcotics traffickingpossession of contrabandcriminal appealdriver liabilitypolice witness credibilitychemical examiner reportacquittal of passengers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a conviction under Section 9-c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the driver and passengers could be held liable for the narcotics recovered from the vehicle, and whether the prosecution's evidence, consisting solely of police witnesses, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for the transportation of narcotics found therein, as they are in control and possession of the vehicle. However, the Court acquitted the passengers, ruling that mere presence in a vehicle does not establish knowledge or possession of contraband, and the prosecution failed to prove any link between the passengers and the narcotics. The Court affirmed the principle that police officials are competent witnesses and that the non-joinder of private witnesses does not invalidate recovery proceedings, nor is a delay in sending samples to the laboratory fatal to the prosecution's case, as the relevant rules are directory.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics recovered from that vehicle?
  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics establish criminal possession?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction in narcotics cases without independent private witnesses?
  • Does a delay in sending samples to a chemical examiner beyond 72 hours vitiate the prosecution's case in narcotics matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah and others vs Abdul Razaq and others2022 PLJ Quetta 33, 2022 PLD Balochistan 114 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Iqra Anwar-Ul-Quran Lil Itefal Trust through its Director, Quetta vs2022 PLJ Quetta 40 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhmmad Sadiq vs The State2022 YLR 2392 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal trialbail rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a case involving the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics (28 kg and 921 grams of Ice/Sheesha) from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations, the alleged procedural violations regarding the search and seizure, and the advanced stage of the trial. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and attracts the statutory bar against bail under Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail should not be encouraged when trial proceedings are at the final stage, as this could prejudice the merits of the case. The court affirmed that while individual liberty is a fundamental right, it must be balanced against national interests in curbing the menace of narcotics trafficking.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail generally encouraged when the trial proceedings before the trial court are at the final stage?
  • Does Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 impose a bar on the grant of bail for offences involving death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman and others vs Hameedullah and others2022 MLD 961 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakria vs District And Sessions Judge, Quetta and another2022 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31
  constitutional petitionwilful absencedismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the orders of his dismissal from service as a Naib Qasid and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service on account of continuous wilful absence from duty, following a regular inquiry and multiple previous warnings, notices, and minor penalties, was lawful. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner was a habitual and wilful absentee whose conduct was unbecoming, and that the penalty of dismissal imposed by the competent authority was fully justified based on the inquiry report and biometric attendance records. The court laid down the principle that unauthorized absence from duty, when proven and persistent despite multiple warnings, warrants the major penalty of dismissal, and courts or tribunals should not whimsically interfere with departmental penalties imposed by competent authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is justified in cases of continuous wilful absence from duty?
  • Can a court or tribunal interfere with a departmental penalty of dismissal imposed by a competent authority without citing proper legal grounds?
  • Does a history of repeated warnings and show-cause notices for unauthorized absence support a major penalty of termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The State2022 MLD 379 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-06
  narcoticschain of custodycriminal appealacquittalwitness credibilitysafe transmissionchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by the trial court, which sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment following the alleged recovery of three kilograms of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized contraband and whether the material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses rendered the conviction unsafe. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, as the official who transported the samples to the Chemical Examiner was not produced as a witness. Furthermore, significant discrepancies regarding the date of arrest and the circumstances of the recovery undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any break or gap in the chain of custody renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable, and that material contradictions in witness statements are sufficient to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of seized narcotic samples render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce the official responsible for transmitting samples to the laboratory?
  • Do material contradictions regarding the date and circumstances of an arrest in witness testimonies warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir Nazeer vs Lubna Kosar and 2 others2022 CLC 372 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and others vs Bibi Gul Seema and others2022 PLJ Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wassay Tareen vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2022 PLJ Quetta 144 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 695 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-09
  murderocular testimonyrelated witnessesmedical evidencemotiverecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment as Tazir, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony of close relatives, uncorroborated by independent witnesses or weapon recoveries, is sufficient for conviction, and whether minor discrepancies and unproved motive vitiate the prosecution case. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, being natural, consistent, and confidence-inspiring, requires no independent corroboration, and that medical evidence sufficiently supported the ocular account. The Court established that mere relationship to the deceased does not render a witness interested or unreliable, that substitution of a real culprit is a rare phenomenon, and that the failure to prove motive or recover the weapon of offense is not fatal to the prosecution when direct evidence is trustworthy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for murder prove fatal to its case?
  • Is the recovery of the crime weapon and empties a mandatory requirement for sustaining a murder conviction?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to make the prosecution case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfaraz vs Najeebullah and another2022 PLD Balochistan 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1356 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-31
  circumstantial evidenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealforensic science laboratorySection 161 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Sariab Division, for offences under Section 320(b) and Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the provided circumstantial and ocular evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the evidence was riddled with significant doubts. Specifically, the court found that the sole eyewitness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was recorded with an unexplained 24-day delay, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the identification parade was procedurally flawed, violating established judicial guidelines, and the forensic evidence was compromised by unexplained delays in dispatching samples to the laboratory. The court reiterated the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release, emphasizing that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must always be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, render the testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish a complete and unbroken chain of events?
  • What is the legal consequence of an identification parade conducted with procedural irregularities and without following established judicial guidelines?
  • Does the retention of crime weapons and empties at a police station for an extended period before dispatch to a forensic laboratory invalidate the forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Javed vs Anjuman-e-Asna Ashria and another2022 CLC 830 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi alias Nabikho vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1208 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-13
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtunnatural conduct of witnessesocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittalhearsay evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the alleged eye-witnesses exhibited unnatural conduct by failing to intervene during the altercation or assist the injured victim, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court determined that hearsay evidence from the complainant was insufficient, and medical evidence, while confirming the cause of death, could not corroborate the identity of the assailant. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the court reiterated that even a slight doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to corroborate the identity of an accused in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the conduct of alleged eye-witnesses is found to be unnatural?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt exists regarding their guilt?
  • Does hearsay evidence from a complainant who did not witness the crime carry evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Khan vs Yar Muhammad and 3 others2022 KLR Criminal Cases 73 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-02
  criminal acquittal appealaggrieved personlocus standihurt casemaintainability of appealstanding to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's order acquitting respondents of charges under Section 337-AF of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the father of an adult, sane victim of hurt has the standing to file an appeal against an acquittal order under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the appellant, being the father of an adult and sane victim, did not qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio established that in cases of hurt, the right to appeal an acquittal is primarily vested in the injured party. If the victim is a minor or insane, the right may be exercised by specific legal guardians, or by legal heirs if the victim dies. Because the victim in this case was neither minor nor insane, the father lacked the requisite standing to maintain the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the father of an adult, sane victim of hurt have the standing to file an appeal against an acquittal order under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case?
  • In what circumstances can a person other than the injured party file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 others2022 CLC 1354 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Ishfaq alias Munshi and 3 others2022 YLR 1620 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-18
  criminal acquittal appealocular evidenceinterested witnessadverse inferencebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponforensic delaypresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal acquittal appeals arising from the same incident, wherein the respondents were acquitted by the trial court of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in the ocular evidence and the lack of independent corroboration. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the acquittals. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the incident's details, and the ocular witnesses, being interested, required independent corroboration which was absent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the failure to produce a material witness warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court also found the recovery of the crime weapon unreliable due to procedural flaws and noted that the delayed submission of crime empties to the forensic expert destroyed their evidentiary value. The judgment reaffirms that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a material witness warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular testimony that is contradicted by medical evidence and lacks independent corroboration?
  • Does the delayed submission of crime empties to a forensic expert destroy their evidentiary value?
  • Is it necessary for there to be numerous circumstances creating doubt to justify an acquittal, or is a single reasonable doubt sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and another vs Muhammad Bashir and another2022 YLR 1992 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-08
  criminal acquittal appealcommon intentionvicarious liabilityevidence in absence of accusedcross-examinationdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the private respondent was acquitted of the charge under sections 302 and 109 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether vicarious liability under section 34 can be fastened without an overt act or common intention, and whether evidence recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding accused and without an opportunity of cross-examination is admissible against a subsequently arrested co-accused under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention or any overt act against the respondent, who was empty-handed and not attributed any role of firing or motive, and further ruled that previous statements recorded without the opportunity of cross-examination cannot be transposed against a newly tried co-accused. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and dismissed the appeal as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence of an accused at the scene of crime without any overt act is sufficient to attract vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a deposition recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding accused be used against a subsequently arrested co-accused without the opportunity of cross-examination?
  • Whether previous testimony satisfying Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can be transposed against an accused who had no right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the earlier proceeding?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Furqan Khan vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan2022 PLC (C.S.) 1459 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-27
  constitutional petitionservice regularizationdoctrine of lacheslimitationrepatriationad hoc appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking implementation of a Provincial Cabinet decision from 1993, challenging his repatriation to his parent department, and contesting a warning letter. The core legal question concerned whether a stale claim for implementing a decades-old cabinet decision regarding service regularization could be entertained despite the doctrine of laches and limitation. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the claim was hopelessly time-barred and barred by laches as the petitioner slept on his rights for over 25 years without a plausible explanation. The court laid down the principle that the law of limitation and doctrine of laches must be strictly enforced, and unexplained, inordinate delays in invoking constitutional jurisdiction cannot be condoned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition seeking implementation of a decades-old cabinet decision is barred by the doctrine of laches?
  • Can an employee challenge their repatriation to a parent department after voluntarily accepting regular appointment in another office?
  • Does the law of limitation apply strictly to constitutional petitions involving service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and others vs The State through Prosecutor General2022 MLD 1589 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21
  cross-casescounter-casecriminal revisionsimultaneous trialconflict of judgmentsfair trialaggression determination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners in a case arising from a cross-version incident. The core legal question was whether it is legally permissible or proper for a trial court to adjudicate a criminal case without simultaneously trying a counter-case arising from the same incident, where both involve conflicting versions of the same occurrence. The Court held that while the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not explicitly mandate a specific procedure for cross-cases, it is a settled and salutary practice that such cases must be tried side-by-side by the same court. The rationale is to prevent conflicting judgments, ensure a comprehensive assessment of the evidence to determine the true aggressor, and avoid the prejudice of convicting an accused without considering the full context of the incident. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to try both cases concurrently and pronounce judgments simultaneously. The key principle established is that cross-cases involving the same incident should be tried together by the same court to ensure justice and consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a mandatory requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that cross-cases arising from the same incident be tried by the same court?
  • What is the legal rationale for requiring that cross-cases be tried side-by-side and decided simultaneously?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused in a case while a counter-case regarding the same incident remains pending in a different court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen Khokar vs Muhammad Asif Awan2022 PLD Balochistan 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sameena Anwar and 2 others vs The Manager, United Bank Ltd. and others2022 PLD Balochistan 108 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nisar Ahmad Shahwani and Brothers through Owner and another2022 CLC 1999 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kohi Construction Co./Government Contractors, Kohlu through2022 PLD Balochistan 103 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iqra Anwar-Ul-Quran Lil Itefal through Director vs Pakistan2022 CLC 173 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mehrab-Ud-Din vs Moula Bakhsh and 8 others2022 YLR 1353 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-10
  criminal acquittal appealreasonable doubtdelayed FIRpost-mortem delayinterested witnessesmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the circumstances of the occurrence. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding multiple fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. Specifically, the Court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a significant delay in the post-mortem examination suggesting the fabrication of witnesses, and the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses who claimed to be present but sustained no injuries. Furthermore, the Court found the reliance on torchlight identification unreliable, particularly as the torch was never recovered, and noted the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report linking the recovered weapon to the crime. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal, and that an acquittal judgment should not be reversed unless it is blatantly perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • Is the identification of accused persons by torchlight in a night occurrence reliable when the torch is not recovered by the police?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be set aside if the prosecution fails to provide forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime?
  • Does the failure of alleged eye-witnesses to sustain injuries during a violent attack render their presence at the scene unnatural?
  Read full judgment →
• Meeran Bakhsh alias Matru vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 360 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-23
  absconderanti-terrorismconviction in absentiafair trialdue processprocedural lapsebail and abscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing him under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for abscondence, in absentia. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without following the trial procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act and without framing a charge or recording evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court's cursory conviction without framing a charge, recording evidence, or following the procedure under Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 violated the principles of a fair trial guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The court laid down the principle that trials for offences under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 19 and respect the constitutional guarantees of due process and a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without framing a formal charge and recording evidence?
  • Does a trial for an offence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 require following the regular procedure provided under Section 19 of the said Act?
  • Is a conviction in absentia under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 sustainable if it violates the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Muhammad Naseem vs The State2022 YLR 469 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-12
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencerecovery of weaponappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of his paternal uncle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and alleged recovery of the crime weapon. The High Court found significant contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events and the recovery of the weapon, which was allegedly found twenty days later on the roof of the complainant's house. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to explain why the appellant, allegedly armed, did not target the eyewitnesses present at the scene. Holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts and that the trial court misread the evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, even if only a single reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses is contradicted by the physical evidence and the circumstances of the case?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce independent witnesses when available undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan vs The State2022 KLR Criminal Cases 132 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-19
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtinterested witnessesunproved motivepolice disclosuresection 342 examinationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the reliability of interested ocular evidence, the legal effect of an unproved motive, the admissibility of disclosure statements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the consequences of omitting incriminating evidence such as abscondence during the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court held that where prosecution witnesses are related and inimical, their testimony requires independent corroboration, unproved motives carry no sanctity, police disclosures without discovery of new facts are inadmissible, and failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 causes prejudice and vitiates reliance thereon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect when the prosecution fails to prove an alleged motive in a murder case?
  • Are disclosure statements made to police admissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no new facts are discovered?
  • Does the failure of the trial court to put an incriminating circumstance like abscondence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cause prejudice warranting exclusion of that evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali vs Ishaq Ali2022 PLD Balochistan 66 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2022 YLR 2195 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1083 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-27
  rash and negligent drivingcriminal appealburden of proofreasonable doubtacquittalcontributory negligenceqatl-i-khata
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 320, 337/G, 427, and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in death and injury. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the essential element of "rash or negligent" driving to sustain a conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused acted rashly or negligently, noting that the mere occurrence of an accident or high speed does not automatically imply criminal liability. The court emphasized that judicial verdicts cannot be based on surmises, conjectures, or presumptions. The holding established that the prosecution bears the burden of proving rashness and negligence through independent, cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court highlighted that contributory negligence by the other party must be considered, and where evidence is open to two interpretations, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere occurrence of a road accident or high speed establish the offense of rash and negligent driving under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when based on presumptions and conjectures rather than cogent evidence?
  • Must the prosecution prove rash and negligent driving through independent evidence to secure a conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When evidence in a criminal case is open to two interpretations, which interpretation must the court adopt?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan and another vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 1427 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-26
  murderjudicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealrecovery of weaponburden of proofillicit relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliability of eye-witnesses, the admissibility of a judicial confession, and the weight of circumstantial evidence, including motive and weapon recovery. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It affirmed that a judicial confession, if found voluntary and true, is admissible and can form the basis of conviction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that when a death occurs within the private residence of the accused, the burden to explain the circumstances shifts to the accused; failure to provide a reasonable explanation strengthens the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Court held that extra-judicial confessions corroborated by the recovery of crime weapons are sufficient for conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were maintained, and the revision petition seeking enhancement was dismissed due to mitigating circumstances surrounding the motive of illicit relations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a judicial confession if the accused later retracts it?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when a death occurs within their private residence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction if corroborated by the recovery of a crime weapon?
  • Can a court maintain a conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence when the motive is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Jannat Bibi and 2 others vs The State2022 MLD 738 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-09
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionextra-judicial confessiondelayed nominationsupplementary statementbenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed against the trial court's judgment whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Jabbar. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed supplementary statements for nomination, and the credibility of retracted extra-judicial and judicial confessions. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution relied entirely on weak, uncorroborated circumstantial evidence from interested witnesses, that the delayed nomination of the appellants was the result of deliberation and consultation, and that the retracted confessional statements were neither voluntary nor corroborated by independent evidence. Consequently, the High Court established the key principles that an accused cannot be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture, that a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence is mandatory, and that a retracted confession requires strong corroboration in material particulars to sustain a conviction. The appeals were accepted and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence that lacks an interconnected chain and independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession in a criminal trial?
  • Does medical evidence alone constitute sufficient corroboration regarding the identity of an accused person?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed nomination of accused persons through a supplementary statement without a plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Humaira Allah Dita and another2022 YLR 1123 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan2022 MLD 1716 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-28
  alteration of chargestolen propertydacoitycriminal revisionjurisdictiontransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Sibi, which dismissed an application for the alteration of the charge under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question concerned whether mere possession of a stolen vehicle without established knowledge of its use in a dacoity attracts Section 412, P.P.C., and whether the trial court has the power to alter the charge and transfer the case. The Balochistan High Court held that mere possession or registration of an FIR in another province does not ipso facto prove knowledge, meaning Section 412 is not attracted without proof of knowledge, warranting alteration of the charge to Section 411 and transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge that a recovered property was used in a dacoity to sustain a charge under Section 412, P.P.C., and trial courts are empowered to alter charges at any stage prior to judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of a stolen vehicle attract Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof that the accused knew it was used in a dacoity?
  • Can a trial court alter a charge at any stage prior to the pronouncement of judgment under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When should a case be remitted to a court of inferior jurisdiction possessing concurrent jurisdiction according to the rules of propriety?
  Read full judgment →
• Izat Ali vs Muhammad Ashfaq and others2022 CLC 2090 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs Noor Ahmed and others2022 YLR 295 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13
  acquittal appealmedical evidence contradictionocular testimonyenmityindependent corroborationpresumption of innocencesafe custody of forensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays in sending recovery items to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and pre-existing enmity between the parties. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the distance of firing and age of injuries, the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of forensic items, and the witnesses were closely related interested persons lacking independent corroboration. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal order reinforces the presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does oral ocular testimony prevail when it is inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the distance and nature of injuries?
  • Is independent corroboration required when eye-witnesses are closely related and there is a history of prior enmity between the parties?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained delay in sending recovered crime articles and blood-stained earth to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Indus Motors Company Limited vs Government of Balochistan, Finance2022 PTD 1226 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan Durrani vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2022 PLC (C.S) 1192 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  constitutional petitionlocus standiaggrieved personRules of BusinessPublic Sector Development Programjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare the assignment of construction of dams to the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department as illegal and in violation of the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012, which vest such matters exclusively in the Irrigation Department. The core legal question was whether government employees of the Irrigation Department have the locus standi as "aggrieved persons" to challenge the cabinet's allocation of development projects to another department. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners, as mere employees, failed to establish the infringement of any personal or fundamental right, and lacked locus standi to question the administrative distribution of business or cabinet decisions regarding the Public Sector Development Program (PSDP). The key principle laid down is that proceedings under Article 199 require the existence of a personal, individual, and justiciable legal right, and government employees cannot maintain a writ petition against internal administrative assignments of government business.

  Questions settled

  • Whether government employees have the locus standi to challenge the allocation of development projects between government departments under the Rules of Business?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained without the infringement of a personal or fundamental legal right?
  • Do employees of the Irrigation Department qualify as aggrieved persons to question cabinet decisions assigning dam construction to the Public Health Engineering Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and others vs Muhammad Siddique2022 CLC 81 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah vs The State2022 MLD 1701 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcotics controlcriminal jail appealchain of custodydelayed FIRforensic science laboratorybenefit of doubtacquittalcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-c of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution evidence, specifically regarding the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to prove safe custody and transmission of narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within the mandated timeframe, and missing links in the chain of custody. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that unexplained delays in FIR registration and sample transmission, coupled with a broken chain of custody and failure to examine key official witnesses, render the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that any reasonable doubt arising in the links of the chain of custody or prosecution story must be resolved in favor of the accused, and statutory timelines for transmitting samples to government analysts must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case in narcotics matters?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within the prescribed timeframe?
  • Whether the non-examination of the official who transported the samples and the Malkhana incharge breaks the chain of custody resulting in benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • Is a second criminal appeal maintainable when a criminal jail appeal against the same judgment has already been filed and admitted for regular hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs Ammer Muhammad and another2022 MLD 536 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-24
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcriminal proceduremisuse of bailjudicial discretioncross-version case
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant contended that the respondent misused the bail concession by threatening witnesses and that the offense was heinous. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the bail order. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the considerations for granting bail and canceling bail are fundamentally distinct. Bail cancellation constitutes a significant interference with individual liberty and should not be exercised lightly. The Court established that to justify cancellation, the applicant must demonstrate that the original bail order was patently illegal, erroneous, or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or that the accused has demonstrably misused the concession. As the applicant failed to provide substantive proof of such grounds or show that the initial order was perverse, the Court declined to interfere, affirming that bail should not be recalled on flimsy allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal considerations for the cancellation of bail identical to those for the grant of bail?
  • What standard of proof is required to justify the cancellation of a previously granted bail order?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version case necessitate a different approach to bail adjudication?
  • Can bail be cancelled solely on the basis of allegations of witness intimidation without substantive proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Zubair and another vs Mst. Hazar Naz and 13 Others2022 CLD 1311 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Zubair and another vs Mst. Hazar Naz (Widow) and 13 others2022 PLJ Quetta 124 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Obaidullah vs The State2022 YLR 2070 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-14
  dying declarationretracted confessioncircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentmurder referencejudicial confessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the impact of a fourteen-day delay in recording said confession, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if proven voluntary and true, can form the basis of a conviction, especially when corroborated by other evidence like the dying declaration, medical reports, and recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction but, noting the delay in recording the confession and the single-fire nature of the offense, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration made to a private person is substantive evidence requiring no corroboration, and that a delay in recording a confession does not automatically invalidate it unless coercion or torture is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render it inadmissible?
  • Is a dying declaration made to a private person admissible as substantive evidence without corroboration?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the offense despite the conviction being upheld?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah and 2 others vs Dr. Munir Ahmed and another2022 PLJ Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs State2022 PLJ Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Muhammad Ayub Mengal and others2022 CLD 1448 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Marjan vs Deputy Commissioner Loralai2022 MLD 1151 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and 19 others vs Muhammad Naseem and 5 others2022 PLJ Quetta 21, 2022 CLC 1764 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Arsallan Illyas and others2022 YLR 1497 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State2022 YLR 2413 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-28
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlbenefit of doubtfurther inquiryrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Qadir seeking release in case FIR No. 52/2022 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Saddar Uthal District Lasbela, concerning the alleged recovery of 1130 grams of Charas. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to prepare parcels at the spot or obtain samples from the alleged recovered narcotics, thereby creating a dent in the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court held that omissions regarding the preparation of parcels and obtaining of samples create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story at the bail stage, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person even at the bail stage, and where further inquiry is warranted, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to prepare parcels and obtain samples at the spot of alleged narcotics recovery creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when omissions in the FIR cast a doubt on the prosecution story regarding the recovery of narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and others vs Jam Ali Akbar and others2022 MLD 1547 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Naseebullah and others2022 PLJ Quetta 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Ayoub and others2022 MLD 1356 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs The State2022 KLR Criminal Cases 145 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-20
  narcoticschemical examiner reportchain of custodymandatory protocolsbenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Mastung, which convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of charas. The core legal questions were whether the chemical examiner's report was admissible despite lacking the full protocols required by law, and whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the seized contraband. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the chemical examiner's report was unreliable and inadmissible because it failed to provide the full protocols of the tests applied, as mandated by Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe transmission of the samples to the laboratory, as the official responsible for the transit was not produced as a witness. The key principle laid down is that non-compliance with the mandatory protocol requirements for chemical analysis and a broken chain of custody render a forensic report inconclusive, thereby failing to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical analyst's report that fails to include the full protocols of the tests applied meet the evidentiary requirements under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting narcotic samples to the laboratory?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained if the chain of custody of the seized contraband is broken?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima vs National Database And Registration Authority through Director2022 PLD Balochistan 73 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31
  CNIC blockageNADRAfundamental rightscitizenshipdue processcivil revisiondocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the appellate court's judgment that dismissed the petitioner's suit against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) for blocking her Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC). The core legal question concerned whether NADRA possesses the authority to unilaterally block a CNIC and whether such action, taken without due process, violates fundamental rights. The Court held that NADRA is not empowered to adjudicate citizenship, which is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1951. It ruled that the arbitrary blocking of a CNIC, which effectively denies a citizen fundamental rights such as education, health, and employment, is unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that NADRA cannot block a card without following the statutory procedure under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court established that documentary evidence cannot be refuted by mere verbal assertions and that unchallenged witness testimony must be accepted. Consequently, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Database and Registration Authority have the power to adjudicate the citizenship of a person?
  • Can the National Database and Registration Authority block a Computerized National Identity Card without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the blocking of a Computerized National Identity Card by the National Database and Registration Authority constitute a violation of fundamental rights?
  • Is a mere verbal assertion by the National Database and Registration Authority sufficient to rebut documentary evidence regarding citizenship?
  Read full judgment →
• Election Commission of Pakistan through District Election Commissioner, Quetta vs Munir Ahmed Khan Kakar and others2022 PCRLJ 913 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-13
  electoral offencesSessions Court proceduredismissal of complaintnon-appearance of complainantcriminal trial procedureElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of criminal acquittal appeals filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against orders passed by the Additional District Judge-V, Quetta, which dismissed complaints filed under Section 134 of the Elections Act, 2017 due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court, when conducting a trial under the Elections Act, 2017, possesses the authority to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant, similar to the power granted to Magistrates under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaints. The ratio is that the legislature did not grant Sessions Courts the power to dismiss complaints for non-appearance under the procedural framework applicable to them. The Court affirmed that Sessions Courts must follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which does not contain a provision equivalent to Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the impugned dismissal orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sessions Court have the power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant in a trial under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Is the power of a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to trials conducted by a Sessions Court?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Sessions Court to follow when a complainant fails to appear in a case initiated under the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Eid Muhammad vs The State2022 MLD 630 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-27
  illegal dispossessionproperty grabberscivil disputeland mafiacriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to civil property disputes or ordinary persons who are not members of a land mafia or property grabbers. The Balochistan High Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was specifically promulgated to curb the activities of property grabbers, land mafia, and Qabza groups, and does not apply to civil disputes between parties where the accused is not shown to be a land grabber or where a pre-existing civil dispute or long-standing possession is evident. The court laid down the principle that disputes of a civil nature, or cases where the accused does not belong to a land-grabbing group, fall outside the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and consequently set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to ordinary property disputes of a civil nature between private parties?
  • Can a person who is not proven to be a member of a land mafia or Qabza group be convicted under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the primary object and purpose of the promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Anwar and 3 others2022 MLD 1598 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21
  acquittal appealSection 265-K Cr.P.C.miscarriage of justiceappreciation of evidencemedical board reportremand of casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court had granted the acquittal based on a medical board report disputing the complainant's injuries, without recording evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 265-K to terminate proceedings prematurely. The High Court held that the trial court erred by relying on contested medical documents without allowing the prosecution to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The Court emphasized that an acquittal under Section 265-K does not carry the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits after a full trial. The principle laid down is that the power to acquit under Section 265-K should not be used to throttle the process of justice when prima facie evidence exists; rather, courts must ensure that cases are decided on merits, providing parties a fair opportunity to prove their versions through evidence, thereby preventing a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order passed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits?
  • Is it appropriate for a trial court to acquit an accused based on a disputed medical report without recording evidence?
  • What is the primary consideration for a court when deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court re-appreciate evidence to set aside an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Danae International Corporation vs M.V. Camel (Ex-Camelot) and another2022 PLJ Quetta 78, 2022 CLC 1778 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs M/s.2022 PLJ Quetta 168 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs Messrs Saindak Metals Ltd. Quetta, Tax Payer 20062022 PTD 1290 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Collector Modell Custom Collectorate of Gawadar, Custom House2022 PLJ Quetta 175 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Church Missionary Trust Association through Authorized representative vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and others2022 PLD Balochistan 36 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Changaz Khan vs Mian Khan and 2 others2022 CLC 1966 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General2022 MLD 2061 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-17
  National Accountability Bureauassets beyond known sources of incomebenamidarappeal against acquittalburden of proofancestral propertymisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Balochistan heard a Criminal Ehtesab Appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging the judgment of the Accountability Court-II, Balochistan, which acquitted the respondents of offences under Section 9(a)(v) and (xii), punishable under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The prosecution alleged that respondent No. 1, a public servant, accumulated assets and maintained bank accounts disproportionate to known sources of income, utilizing respondent No. 2 as a benamidar. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution discharged its initial burden of proving disproportionate assets and whether sufficient grounds existed to interfere with an acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove illegal gains, as evidence demonstrated that the properties were ancestral and the bank transactions were satisfactorily explained by legitimate joint family businesses and vehicle trading. The Court reiterated that an acquittal will not be disturbed absent perversity, complete illegality, or gross misreading of evidence causing a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution discharge its initial burden of proof in an assets-beyond-means reference where the defence shows that disputed properties are ancestral?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal in an appeal against acquittal?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when an investigating officer fails to record the statement of a key witness regarding the accused's legitimate business dealings?
  Read full judgment →
• Bevergh Khan vs Surat Khan and 7 others2022 CLC 1382 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad Kakar vs Syed Abdul Rasheed and another2022 MLD 516 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs Karim Gul and 4 others2022 PLD Balochistan 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Badar-Ud-Din vs The State2022 MLD 1346 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-14
  murderfirearm injuriesocular accountrelated witnessesconstructive liabilitycommon intentionmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder and firearm injury incident. The core legal question revolved around whether the ocular testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence and corroborative forensic recoveries, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt despite general attribution of roles. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular accounts and reliable corroborative evidence, and that the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied where multiple armed assailants acted in furtherance of a common intention. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration if found to be truthful and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does the general attribution of firing by multiple accused persons negate a conviction when supported by consistent medical evidence and weapon recoveries?
  • What constitutes constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases involving multiple armed assailants?
  • Does a delay in recording the statement of an injured witness due to unconsciousness render their testimony doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Bhayo vs Chief Executive Officer, Qesco, Quetta and 5 others2022 PLC 49 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-12
  individual grievancelimitationcondonation of delaywrong forumlabor disputedismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside judgments passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, which had dismissed his grievance petition. The petitioner had been dismissed from service by QESCO and previously pursued remedies before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court before filing a grievance application under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 after a lapse of seven years. The core legal questions concerned whether a grievance petition filed after such a prolonged delay without seeking condonation of delay or showing sufficient cause is maintainable, and whether the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act regarding limitation are mandatory. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that limitation is mandatory, must be applied by the court even if not raised as a defense, and that prosecuting remedies before a wrong forum or acting with negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. The court affirmed that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act regarding the dismissal of time-barred matters are mandatory in nature?
  • Can a party benefit from the time spent prosecuting a remedy before a wrong forum without showing due diligence and bona fides?
  • Whether the defense of limitation can be waived or if it is a duty of the court to examine limitation regardless of pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 853 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-12
  narcotics transportationrecovery from vehicledriver liabilitypassenger acquittalpolice official witnessesdelay in chemical examiner reportsafe custody of samples
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Judge CNS Sibi convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for transporting sixty-eight kilograms of charas concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the driver of a vehicle can be held responsible for narcotics recovered from secret cavities, whether police official testimony is credible without independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner is fatal, and whether a mere passenger in the vehicle shares liability. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of the vehicle is in control and possession of the vehicle and is liable for narcotics found within it, that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not barred by the exclusion of section 103 Cr.P.C. under the CNS Act, and that minor delays in sending samples are not fatal when safe custody is established. However, the court held that mere presence as a passenger without proof of knowledge or control does not establish guilt. The appeal of the driver was dismissed, while the appeal of the passenger was allowed and he was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle?
  • Does the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 render police officials competent witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Is mere delay in dispatching narcotic samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle carrying narcotics establish his knowledge and guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Asiya Naz vs Lal Bibi and others2022 PLJ Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• Amir Tufil vs Abbas2022 CLC 2059 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1480 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilityocular evidencemedical evidenceappreciation of evidencecommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder (qatl-i-amd) and causing injuries, as determined by the trial court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of alleged contradictions in witness testimony, the effect of delay in FIR registration, and the application of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence. The court affirmed that medical evidence is corroborative rather than substantive, and that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core account remains credible. Furthermore, the court established that under Section 149, proof of specific overt acts is unnecessary if a common object of an unlawful assembly is proven. Finally, the court ruled that relationship between witnesses is not a valid ground to discard their testimony if they are otherwise natural and truthful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of a specific overt act by each member of an unlawful assembly?
  • Is medical evidence considered substantive evidence or merely corroborative in criminal trials?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the victim?
  • Do minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed and 2 others vs Ghulam Mustafa and others2022 MLD 908 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs Shabana and another2022 CLC 1917 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-18
  succession certificateservice benefitsTarkainheritancedependentbenevolent fundgratuityfamily pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute over the distribution of service benefits following the death of a government employee. The core legal question was whether various post-death service benefits—such as group insurance, benevolent fund, and gratuity—constitute part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) to be distributed among all legal heirs according to Islamic inheritance law, or whether they are specific grants payable only to designated family members under service rules. The Court held that benefits like gratuity, group insurance, and benevolent funds, which do not become payable to an employee during their lifetime, do not form part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) and are not inheritable by all legal heirs. Instead, these are grants or concessions governed by specific service rules and regulations, payable only to those defined as 'family' under the relevant statutes. The Court affirmed that the father, being a government pensioner himself, did not qualify as a dependent, and the distribution of these specific grants must strictly follow the applicable service rules rather than general inheritance law.

  Questions settled

  • Do post-death service benefits like group insurance and benevolent funds constitute part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) for inheritance purposes?
  • Are service benefits that were not payable to an employee during their lifetime inheritable by all legal heirs?
  • Does a government pensioner father qualify as a dependent for the purpose of receiving a deceased employee's service grants?
  • Which family members are entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity under the Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1989?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal and 2 others vs Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta and 4 others2022 PCRLJ 1659 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30
  criminal remandwarrants of arresttransfer of investigationdischarge of accusedjurisdiction of magistratefunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioners challenging orders issued by Judicial Magistrates for their arrest and physical remand, as well as an Additional Sessions Judge's order dismissing their criminal revision. The petitioners, initially nominated in a murder case under the Pakistan Penal Code, had been discharged by the Investigating Officer, but following the transfer of further investigation to the Crimes Branch, warrants and remand orders were issued against them. The core legal question concerned the competence and jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to issue warrants of arrest and grant physical remand after the investigation had been transferred and when a challan was already pending or being submitted before the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that once a matter is sub judice before the trial court and a challan is submitted or under process, the Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to issue warrants of arrest or grant remand. The petition was accepted, setting aside the impugned warrants and remand orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate has the jurisdiction to issue warrants of arrest and grant physical remand after the submission of a challan or when the matter is pending before the trial court?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate order the arrest of an accused who was earlier discharged by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with police investigations into criminal offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1260 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-04
  criminal appealocular evidencechance witnessinterested witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusacquittalself-defensebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction for murder and causing injury, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an acquittal appeal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular evidence and weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. It determined that the ocular witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was not established, and that the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the appellant, suggesting a potential self-defense scenario. The Court emphasized that while an injured witness is generally credible, their testimony must still be tested for truthfulness, and the mere existence of injuries does not guarantee reliability. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to the discarded prosecution witnesses. It concluded that a capital conviction cannot be sustained without unimpeachable, trustworthy evidence, and that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused?
  • Is the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable when prosecution witnesses are found to be untruthful?
  • Does the testimony of a chance witness require independent corroboration to be reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Construction Company through Proprietor vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary, Mineral and Mines Deptt. and another2022 CLC 550 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 286 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-05
  criminal revisionidentification paradestatement under section 164inadmissible evidencebenefit of doubtkidnappingpolice disclosureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentences under Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were upheld by the appellate court. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of identification parades conducted without specific role attribution or adherence to established safeguards, the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the presence of the accused or opportunity for cross-examination, and the admissibility of police disclosures under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent defects in the identification parade, inadmissible statements, and dishonest improvements made by witnesses. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charge, with directions for their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade loses its evidentiary value if witnesses fail to describe the specific role played by the accused during the occurrence?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence if it was not recorded in the presence of the accused and without an opportunity for cross-examination?
  • Are admissions and disclosures made before the police admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no new facts are discovered as a consequence thereof?
  • What is the duty of the trial court regarding the immediate determination and exclusion of inadmissible evidence tendered during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raziq vs Muhammad Rafiq and others2022 CLC 1048 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →