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.

• Naseer Khan vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-13
  Fasad-fil-ArzcompromiseTa'zirhabitual offenderQisascriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order by the trial court which, while accepting a compromise between the parties regarding a murder charge under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to fourteen years' imprisonment as Ta'zir. The core legal question was whether a trial court, upon accepting a compromise in a murder case, retains the authority to convict the offender under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the principle of Fasad-fil-Arz. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the appellant was a habitual and professional criminal with a history of multiple murders and robbery. The court held that the appellant’s conduct and criminal history established him as a potential danger to society, thereby invoking the principle of Fasad-fil-Arz. The court affirmed that even when Qisas is waived through compromise, the state may still impose Ta'zir under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to maintain public order and protect society from individuals who repeatedly commit heinous crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after accepting a compromise for the main offence of murder?
  • Does the principle of Fasad-fil-Arz apply to an offender who has a history of multiple murders and criminal conduct?
  • Is a compromise in a murder case sufficient to prevent a conviction under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when the offender is a habitual criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed and others vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 573 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-31
  circumstantial evidenceadmissibility of disclosuremurderunnatural offencecriminal appealrecoverylast seen evidencestrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by three convicts against their convictions and sentences under Section 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a young man. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence—including disclosures made to police and subsequent recoveries—was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether such disclosures were admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court held that the convictions were sound, finding that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, medical reports confirming strangulation, and the recovery of incriminating items based on the appellants' disclosures. The Court affirmed that disclosures leading to the discovery of new facts and the recovery of incriminating articles are admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, notwithstanding the general inadmissibility of confessions made to police. The principle laid down is that where information provided by an accused in custody leads to the discovery of distinct facts or incriminating evidence, such information is admissible, and the non-production of a complainant who is not an eyewitness does not invalidate the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Are disclosures made to police by an accused in custody admissible if they lead to the discovery of new facts or incriminating evidence?
  • Does the non-production of a complainant as a witness invalidate a criminal conviction if the complainant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone if the chain of events is unbroken?
  • Does the lack of registration of a mobile SIM card in the name of the user invalidate evidence regarding its possession or usage in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Naqeebullah and 2 others vs SSP, Investigation and 4 others2019 PLD Balochistan 101 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah vs The State2019 MLD 1505 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycommon intentionsupplementary statementovert actmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arose from a petition filed by the accused, Najeebullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given that the initial First Information Report (FIR) attributed no specific overt act of violence to him, and the subsequent allegation of a controlling role was introduced only through a supplementary statement. The Balochistan High Court held that the case against the applicant constituted a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that the absence of an overt act in the FIR, combined with the delayed attribution of a specific role in the supplementary statement, created reasonable doubt regarding the applicant's participation. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing the principle that where no overt act is ascribed to an accused, courts should adopt a lenient approach, and where a case warrants further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the FIR fails to ascribe any specific overt act of violence to him?
  • Does the introduction of a specific role in a supplementary statement, which was absent in the initial FIR, create a case of further inquiry?
  • When is an accused entitled to the concession of bail as a matter of right under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naib Subedar Nasabuddin, Frontier Corps (South) and others vs Ali2019 P Cr. L J 1539 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-29
  criminal acquittal appealdelayed statementidentification paradebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencedouble presumption of innocenceSection 161 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Criminal Acquittal Appeals filed by the complainant and the State against the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 320 and Section 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal vehicle collision. The core legal questions addressed whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal was legally sustainable. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's case suffered from material defects. Specifically, the court found that the statements of key eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were delayed by thirteen days without justification, rendering them unreliable. Furthermore, the failure to conduct a mandatory identification parade, given that the accused and witnesses were strangers, created reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed the principle that a double presumption of innocence attaches to an acquittal order, and that a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to warrant acquittal, as the prosecution must prove its case without reliance on conjectures or probabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermine the reliability of prosecution witnesses?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused and the witnesses are not previously known to each other?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court's decision is not arbitrary or capricious?
  • Is a single infirmity in the prosecution's case sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh vs Abdul Hakeem and another2019 YLR 240 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-14
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular evidenceadverse inferencepresumption of innocencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Awaran, which acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or if it suffered from misreading. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally doubtful, noting an unexplained nine-hour delay in lodging the FIR and the subsequent nomination of the accused after a forty-day delay. The court found the ocular testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses to be unnatural and contradictory, and noted that the prosecution failed to produce a key witness, warranting an adverse inference. Emphasizing that the registration of an FIR is a condition precedent to investigation, the court affirmed that the trial court’s acquittal was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court reiterated that in cases of doubt, the benefit must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, and that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, warranting no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a First Information Report constitute a condition precedent to the initiation of a criminal investigation?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a key witness?
  • Is an appellate court permitted to interfere with an acquittal order that is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the evidence?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in a criminal case accrue to the accused as a matter of right or grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Malik Naeem Khan Bazai and 18 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 928, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 261, 2019 CLC 1164 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs (Malik) Naeem Khan Bazai and 18 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 261 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Investigation Officer Levies Station Hanna, Quetta and another2021 PLJ Quetta 21, 2019 MLD 1719 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Malik vs Government of Pakistan through its2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 185, 2019 PLJ Quetta 71, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1272 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-21
  PTCL employeespensionary benefitsconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory protectionalternate remedycivil servant statusterms and conditions of serviceT&T Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition was filed by a former employee of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department, subsequently transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking to challenge government notifications regarding pensionary benefits and pay increases. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to the same benefits as civil servants, citing statutory protections for his service conditions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a former T&T employee, retained civil servant status and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 to grant the requested relief. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the petitioner’s terms and conditions of service are statutorily protected against disadvantageous variation under the relevant Acts, he is no longer a civil servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner must exhaust efficacious alternate remedies by approaching the competent authority for his grievances, rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment affirms that transferred employees are not civil servants, though their service rights remain statutorily guaranteed.

  Questions settled

  • Are former T&T Department employees transferred to PTCL considered civil servants?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate pension claims for PTCL employees when an alternate remedy exists?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of transferred PTCL employees be varied to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 40 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-15
  Anti-Terrorism ActJurisdiction of ATCPersonal enmityCriminal appealDe novo trialPrivate vendettaInterpretation of penal statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) for murder, arising from a dispute involving personal enmity. The core legal question was whether an offence stemming from a private vendetta constitutes an act of terrorism triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The High Court held that the incident lacked the essential elements of terrorism, such as creating public fear or insecurity, and was instead a private offence. Consequently, the ATC lacked jurisdiction to try the case. The court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that determining jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act requires a holistic examination of the FIR, investigation material, and surrounding circumstances to ascertain the motive and design. If an offence is a private dispute, it must be tried under ordinary law. Furthermore, applying special laws to cases not clearly falling within their ambit violates the constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law, and penal statutes must be interpreted in a manner favoring the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence arising from personal enmity or private vendetta fall within the ambit of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What factors must a court consider when determining whether an offence is triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is a conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court valid if the underlying offence lacks the elements of terrorism and should have been tried by an ordinary court?
  • How should a penal statute be interpreted when there are two possible interpretations regarding its applicability?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs The State2019 MLD 272 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-08
  post-arrest bailcross-casescross-FIRsfurther inquiryaggressor and victimdual murders
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving dual murders and injuries arising from a violent clash between rival parties. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted when cross-cases and cross-FIRs were registered by both parties for the same incident, making it unclear at the bail stage as to which party was the aggressor. The Balochistan High Court held that where cross-cases with competing versions exist and the question of who acted as the aggressor requires a determination of facts through recorded evidence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, entitling the accused to bail. The court laid down the principle that in situations involving cross-FIRs arising from the same transaction where both parties sustain casualties and attribute aggression to each other, tentative assessment at the bail stage cannot resolve the issue of aggression, thereby warranting the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted in a case involving cross-FIRs where both parties level allegations of aggression against each other?
  • Does the registration of cross-cases regarding the same incident make the matter one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Can tentative assessment at the bail stage determine which party was the aggressor in a sudden fight with rival versions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Khan vs Yar Muhammad and 3 others2019 YLR 2843 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-30
  acquittal appealaggrieved personlocus standihurt casecriminal procedurestanding to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kharan, which acquitted private respondents of charges under Section 337-AF of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the father of an adult victim, who was not the injured party himself, qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby possessing the standing to file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case. The Court held that the appellant lacked the requisite standing, determining that in cases of hurt, the right to appeal is primarily vested in the victim. The Court established the principle that the term 'person aggrieved' under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not extend to the father of an adult, sane victim who was not present at the occurrence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as not maintainable, affirming that only the injured party—or their legal heirs in cases of death or specific incapacity—may pursue such an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the father of an adult victim have the legal standing to file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case?
  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' entitled to file an appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appeal against acquittal maintainable by a complainant who was not the injured party in a hurt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 17 others vs Abdul Hameed and 4 others2021 [M] C L R 406, 2021 PLJ Quetta 18, 2019 PLD Balochistan 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi vs National Accountability Bureau2019 KLR Criminal Cases 405, 2019 PLD Balochistan 9, 2019 PLJ Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and another vs The State2019 MLD 1597 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-06
  murder convictionappellate reviewhearsay evidenceburden of proofcriminal appealsentence enhancementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on witness testimony and the absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, finding that the complainant's testimony was based on hearsay and that the alleged eye-witnesses provided inconsistent and unreliable accounts. The Court emphasized that conviction in a criminal case must rest on solid, credible evidence rather than mere suspicion or delayed reports. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution and that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when the complainant's testimony is based entirely on hearsay evidence?
  • Does a significant delay in reporting a missing person, coupled with a lack of direct evidence, undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution's star witnesses provide testimony that is inconsistent or lacks corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and 4 others vs Nabi Bakhsh and another2019 YLR 2025 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actinterim possessionland disputestatus quocivil disputeinterim reliefproperty ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge Mastung, whereby an application for interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was allowed, directing the petitioners to hand over peaceful possession of the disputed land to the respondent-complainant. The core legal question revolves around whether interim possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be granted when both parties claim conflicting ownership, long-standing possession, and where a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief at an interim stage without recording evidence, overlooking the fact that a bona fide property dispute existed between the parties and that the scope of Section 7 is strictly limited to a tentative assessment. The court set aside the impugned order, directed the parties to maintain status quo, and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that interim orders under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot pre-empt the final outcome or resolve complicated questions of possession and ownership without recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be granted when both parties raise divergent claims of ownership and long-standing possession?
  • Can a trial court decide the merits of a property dispute conclusively through an interim order under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is recording of evidence necessary when parties present conflicting claims regarding forcible dispossession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and others vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1731 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  Section 342 examinationcriminal appealremandconviction set asideincriminating evidenceprocedural illegalityanti-corruptionSection 364 certification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of appellants by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption for offenses including forgery and misappropriation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to properly record the accused's statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to comply with the certification requirements of Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the conviction. The High Court held that the trial court committed a serious illegality by failing to put specific incriminating evidence to the accused, instead relying on a stereotype examination. Furthermore, the mandatory certification under Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was not in the presiding officer's handwriting. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh trial, directing the lower court to record the statements of the accused properly and issue a new judgment. The principle established is that any evidence not put to an accused during their Section 342 examination cannot be used to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court use evidence against an accused that was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Does the failure of a judge to personally handwrite the certificate required by Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the accused's statement?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a fresh trial if the trial court failed to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf and another2019 KLR Criminal Cases 320 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-05
  bail cancellationcross-casesfurther inquirytentative assessmentprejudice to prosecutiondiscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court in a case involving cross-FIRs. The core legal question was whether the bail granted was improper and whether the trial court's observations regarding the nature of the offence prejudiced the prosecution's case. The High Court held that where both parties have lodged cross-FIRs and sustained injuries, the matter constitutes a case of 'further inquiry,' justifying the grant of bail. The court affirmed that the criteria for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it; cancellation requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as the misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, or threats to witnesses, none of which were established here. While upholding the bail, the court expunged specific tentative findings made by the trial court regarding the classification of the offence, noting that such premature conclusions could prejudice the prosecution at trial. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted by a competent court, it should not be cancelled absent compelling evidence of misuse or exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • What are the necessary grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the existence of cross-FIRs and injuries on both sides constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a trial court's tentative findings in a bail order be expunged if they are likely to prejudice the prosecution's case at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs The State2019 KLR Civil Cases 463, 2019 YLR 763 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim vs The State2019 YLR 1791 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-21
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtwithholding of witnessadverse presumptionappreciation of evidenceacquittalocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioner for offences involving hurt and rioting. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's presence and participation in the alleged occurrence, particularly given the withholding of a key independent witness. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, including the complainant's hearsay evidence and material improvements in the testimonies of injured witnesses. Crucially, the court found that the prosecution deliberately withheld the testimony of a Levies employee who was present at the scene and whose statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerated the petitioner. Applying the principle that the withholding of a central independent witness warrants an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted, reaffirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of a central independent witness by the prosecution entitle the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account suffers from material contradictions and improvements regarding the accused's presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum and 4 others vs Mst. Habib-u-Nisa and 2 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 378 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabiha vs Dr. Akbar and 2 others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 38, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 642, 2019 MLD 1873 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  acquittal appealSection 249-A Cr.P.C.double presumption of innocencedelayed FIRmedical evidencemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta, under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant sought to overturn the acquittal of the respondents, who were charged under Sections 337-AD and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in exercising its power to acquit the respondents at a preliminary stage. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s decision was well-reasoned and unexceptional. The Court emphasized that a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with evidence that the investigation commenced prior to the formal registration of the FIR, undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, material contradictions between the eyewitness testimonies and the medical evidence rendered the prosecution's claims unreliable. The Court reiterated the principle that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be disturbed on appeal unless the judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from a gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the charge is found to be groundless?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR negatively impact the evidentiary value of the prosecution's case?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting an investigation prior to the formal registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan vs Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court-II, Quetta and another2019 PLJ Quetta 26, 2019 PLD Balochistan 12 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-16Read full judgment →
• Mir Tariq Mehmood Khetran vs Returning Officer, Na-259 and others2019 KLR Civil Case 308, 2019 MLD 1335 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Shoaib Nosherwani vs Mir Muhammad Ismail Peerakzai and 5 others2019 CLC 261 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-21
  nomination paperselection disqualificationSadiq and Ameenfake degreeArticle 62(1)(f)permanent embargofalse declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for the 2013 Provincial Assembly election by the Election Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s past use of a fake bachelor's degree in the 2002 election, which resulted in a finding of dishonesty, constituted a permanent disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby rendering him ineligible for the 2013 election. The Court held that the petitioner had indeed submitted a false declaration regarding his academic qualifications in 2002 and failed to rebut the evidence of document tampering and disqualification by the University of Punjab's Disciplinary Committee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a finding of a lack of 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen' status due to the submission of fake educational credentials constitutes a permanent disqualification. The key principle laid down is that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, arising from a false declaration of qualifications, is not removed by the mere passage of time and creates a permanent embargo on candidature.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of a fake educational degree in a past election result in a permanent disqualification from contesting future elections?
  • Can a finding of a lack of 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen' status under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be cured by the passage of time?
  • Are findings regarding the falsity of academic documents in previous election petitions admissible as evidence in subsequent election proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Mujib-Ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani vs Returning Officer PB-412019 MLD 1415 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mir Mujib-ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani Contesting Candidate from2019 [M] C.L.R. 906 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Sadiq Umrani and others vs Returning Officer, PB-11, Nasirabad-I and others2019 KLR Civil Case 335, 2019 MLD 1130 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jeeand Coal Company through Managing Partner and others vs Appellate Authority_Secretary, Mines and Minerals Development Department and others2019 CLC 1825 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Akhtar Hussain and 28 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 286 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Lal Bibi and 10 others vs Abdul Rehman and 8 others2020 KLR Civil Cases 335, 2020 PLJ Quetta 16, 2019 CLC 2016 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-01Read full judgment →
• Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1800, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 658 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-19
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceinterested witnesscapital chargeSection 342 examinationmotiveabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular evidence, motive, and other incriminating circumstances. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the ocular witnesses were related to the deceased and inimical toward the appellant, requiring independent corroboration which was absent. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the disclosure statement made to the police was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as no new facts were discovered. The court also found that the trial court erred by failing to put the circumstance of abscondence to the appellant during his Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, and that conviction in capital cases cannot rest on uncorroborated, interested testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put the circumstance of abscondence to an accused during their Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination render it inadmissible as evidence?
  • Is a disclosure statement made to the police admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if no new facts are discovered as a result?
  • Can a conviction in a capital case be sustained solely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the motive once it has been specifically asserted in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-10
  circumstantial evidencelast seeninterested witnessmurder convictionrecovery of crime weaponmotiveQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently established guilt through circumstantial evidence—specifically the deceased being last seen with the appellants, the recovery of the crime weapon, and forensic reports—despite the lack of direct eyewitnesses to the shooting. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. The Court affirmed that mere relationship between witnesses and the deceased does not render them interested witnesses absent proof of enmity. Furthermore, the Court held that motive is not a necessary component of a crime when other evidence is sufficient, and the non-production of a witness does not invalidate the prosecution's case when the evidence presented is of sufficient quality. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments regarding misreading of evidence or procedural irregularities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness?
  • Is proof of motive a necessary requirement for a murder conviction when other evidence is sufficient?
  • Does the non-production of a prosecution witness invalidate the case if other evidence is sufficient?
  • Is a disclosure statement made in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Jan vs Abdul Qudoos Bizanjo and 22 others2019 CLC 1520 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Kaazim Hussain vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 50, 2019 YLR 2717 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseprivate witnessespolice officials as competent witnessesfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application seeking post-arrest bail in case crime No.58 of 2019 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1600 grams of Charas and 200 grams of Ice from the applicant. The core legal questions addressed involve whether the non-association of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates recovery in narcotics cases, and whether the accused made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are heinous, falling within the prohibitory clause, and that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that police officials are competent witnesses and that narcotics offences involving large quantities disentitle the accused to discretionary relief of bail absent grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Is an accused found in possession of a large quantity of narcotics entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of routine?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Muhammad Azhar2019 KLR Criminal Cases 245, 2019 PLD Balochistan 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-03
  multiple FIRsquashment of FIRsame incidentconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsdouble jeopardycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by representatives of Independent Media Corporation and Geo News seeking the quashment of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered across Balochistan regarding a current affairs programme, on the grounds that multiple FIRs for the same incident violate fundamental rights and the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal question was which of the multiple FIRs registered across different cities for the same occurrence should hold the field and proceed to trial. The Balochistan High Court held that for a single incident, only one FIR can proceed, and subsequent reports regarding the same occurrence must be treated as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. rather than separate criminal cases. The Court laid down the principle that multiple FIRs for the same transaction constitute an abuse of process and violate constitutional safeguards, ruling that out of the multiple FIRs registered within its jurisdiction, the one lodged earliest in time shall remain intact while the rest are quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same incident and transaction in different cities?
  • What is the legal status of subsequent FIRs registered for an occurrence when a first information report has already been recorded?
  • Does a proceeding under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 bar criminal prosecution for the same broadcast under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Which FIR should proceed to trial when multiple identical reports are lodged across various police stations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Khan vs Raies Raza Muhammad and 19 others2019 CLC 651 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-31Read full judgment →
• Hawa Begum vs Naik Bakht and others2019 PLD Balochistan 85, 2021 PLJ Quetta 24, 2020 [M] C L R 229, KLR 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Haday Khan vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 652 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderabsconsioncriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the tentative assessment of the record, the completion of investigation, and the circumstances surrounding the case including absconsion. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for further inquiry upon a tentative assessment of the record, and that bail could not be withheld solely due to long absconsion when the guilt or innocence of the accused is yet to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. The court laid down the principle that bail may be granted where the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to furnishing adequate sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether long absconsion alone is sufficient to withhold the concession of bail when a case of further inquiry is made out?
  • Does the absence of a specific role assigned to the accused in the FIR warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail should be granted when the guilt or innocence of the accused is yet to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 957 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-29
  control of narcotic substanceschain of custodychemical examiner reportdelayed transmission of samplesfull protocolsbenefit of the doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge CNS, Quetta, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of heroin and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involve whether an unexplained delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner and the non-compliance with statutory rules regarding the forensic report vitiate the conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that an inordinate, unexplained delay of twenty-five days in transmitting the sample, coupled with the failure to establish a safe and unbroken chain of custody and the omission of full protocols in the Forensic Science Laboratory report as required by the rules, renders the chemical report inconclusive and unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, establishing that safe custody, unbroken chain of transmission of narcotics samples, and adherence to mandatory rules regarding forensic protocols are prerequisites for sustaining a conviction under narcotics legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 regarding full test protocols mandatory for sustaining a conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of a broken or unestablished chain of custody of seized narcotics from the spot of recovery to the laboratory?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained on an inconclusive and unreliable Forensic Science Laboratory report?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 269 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-29
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnessjudicial confessionweapon recoverymedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his son and under Section 337-F(i) for injuring his wife, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imprisonment respectively, with compensation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, including a judicial confession and weapon recovery. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case, emphasizing the high evidentiary value of an injured eye-witness who is the wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence, a voluntary confessional statement, and recovery of the crime weapon. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary weight of an injured witness in a criminal trial?
  • What are the essential requirements for accepting a judicial confession under criminal law?
  • Does the sole testimony of an injured witness corroborated by medical evidence suffice to maintain a conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of abscondence of an accused immediately after the commission of an offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Esham-Ud-Din vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1696 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory ocular testimonydishonest improvementsmedical evidenceacquittalhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment and Daman. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, and whether the contradictions and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warranted the extension of the benefit of the doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony suffered from dishonest improvements and material contradictions, medical evidence contradicted the site of injury, and crucial recoveries like the crime weapon and empties were missing, creating serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, reinforcing the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimony of an injured complainant are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • Does medical evidence alone constitute corroboration regarding the identity of an accused person?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Eng. Saeed Ahmed and others vs Chairman National Highway Authority, Islamabad and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1475, 2019 PLD Balochistan 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-14
  Sacked Employees (Re-Instatement) Act 2010Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionService matterReversion of scaleMaintainabilityJudicial comity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former contract employees of the National Highway Authority, were reinstated under the Sacked Employees (Re-Instatement) Act 2010. Initially granted a higher pay scale under Section 4(a) of the Act, they were subsequently reverted to their original contract scales under Section 4(b) following a judgment by the Sindh High Court in a case to which the petitioners were parties. The petitioners challenged this reversion before the Balochistan High Court. The core legal question was whether a High Court can entertain a constitutional petition challenging an administrative order passed in compliance with a judgment rendered by another High Court. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. It established that no Bench of a High Court possesses the jurisdiction to issue a writ against an order passed by another High Court or to challenge the implementation of such a judgment. The Court emphasized that since the petitioners were parties to the original Sindh High Court proceedings, their proper legal remedy was to challenge that judgment before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, rather than initiating fresh litigation in a different High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition challenging an administrative order passed in compliance with a judgment of another High Court?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by another High Court in a case where the petitioner was a party?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party aggrieved by a judgment of a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Jan vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 443, 2019 PLD Balochistan 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-01
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonyadverse presumptionacquittalcontradictory evidencewithholding evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which found the appellant guilty under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly injuring his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the significant contradictions in the ocular testimony and the absence of key witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including material contradictions between the complainant's initial statement and his court testimony, and the failure to produce the injured victim or the son who allegedly witnessed the incident. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. It establishes that where the prosecution fails to produce central witnesses without explanation, an adverse presumption arises under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that multiple material doubts in the prosecution's narrative necessitate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce central witnesses entitle the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains material contradictions?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide evidence regarding the death of the injured victim mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood Khan and another vs Sultan Muhammad2020 [M] C L R 238, 2020 PLJ Quetta 10, 2019 PLD Balochistan 113 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-27Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs through Additional Collector Custom, MCC-2019 PCTLR 381, 2019 PTD 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-08-02Read full judgment →
• Chairman, NAB through Prosecutor General Accountability NAB vs Sarfraz2019 PLD Balochistan 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  acquittal appealcorruption and corrupt practicesburden of proofpresumption of innocenceillegal gratificationNational Accountability Ordinanceevaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in a reference filed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, regarding allegations of corruption, illegal commissions on wheat sales, and bribery involving public officials and private persons. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proof to establish that the accused misused their authority and amassed ill-gotten wealth through bribery. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce cogent, direct, or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged illegal transactions, while the accused successfully offered a plausible defense supported by documentary evidence regarding legitimate commercial transactions, such as the sale of a vehicle and a plot. Laying down the key principle that an accused is presumed innocent and that an acquittal judgment—strengthened by this double presumption—cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible upon re-analysis, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused through positive and affirmative evidence before the onus shifts to the defense?
  • Can a judgment of acquittal passed by a competent court be interfered with merely on the ground that another view of the evidence is possible?
  • Does the mere existence of bank deposits, in the absence of direct evidence connecting them to illegal gratification, constitute an offence of corruption under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Baram Khan vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2020 PLJ Quetta 1, 2019 PLD Balochistan 120 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-24Read full judgment →
• Balochistan University of Information and Technology and Management Sciences, Quetta vs Nawab Brother (Pvt.) Limited2019 CLC 1685 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Bahlool Khan vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 436, 2019 P Cr. L J 769 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-09
  post-arrest bailcybercrimeblackmailingprohibitory clausePrevention of Electronic Crimes Actconfessional statementmodesty of women
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the accused-applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for allegedly threatening, blackmailing, and demanding money from the complainant by uploading her private objectionable pictures on Facebook messenger. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that bail is not to be granted as a matter of right merely because an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, especially when the crime is heinous, anti-social, and supported by incriminating evidence such as confessional statements and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that the rule of granting bail in offences punishable with less than ten years imprisonment is subject to the facts and circumstances of each case, and courts can competently deny bail in heinous cases involving intrusions into personal privacy and blackmail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does an accused have a right to bail merely because the punishment for the charged offence is less than 10 years imprisonment?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Baboo vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 185, 2019 P Cr. L J 1618 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencepolice disclosuremotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant/accused was entitled to bail where there was no ocular witness, the case rested on circumstantial evidence of a weak nature including footprints and police disclosures, and the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Balochistan High Court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant. The court laid down the principle that where the sole evidence against an accused in a murder case is of the weakest type and requires further inquiry, and the accused is no longer required for investigation, pre-trial or ongoing trial detention should not be used as a punishment, and bail ought to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against him rests entirely on circumstantial and weak evidence requiring further inquiry?
  • Is a disclosure made by an accused before the police admissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no discovery is made pursuant thereto?
  • Does the commencement of a trial operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail by a superior court if the accused is otherwise found entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-17
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtconfessional statementdelayed FIRweapon recoveryocular testimonycontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eye-witness, the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility and voluntariness of a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the reliability of weapon recovery and police disclosures under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements, involuntary and flawed judicial confessions induced by promises of compromise, and unverified weapon recoveries collectively created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that if a circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of an accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording the statements of key witnesses affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible when influenced by inducement or torture?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a disputed weapon recovery without corroborating forensic evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence regarding the identity of an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Aurangzaib and 2 others2020 PLJ Cr.C (Quetta) 923, 2019 YLR 2488 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtocular accountreappraisal of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse, contrary to the record, or the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any overt acts, injuries, or common intention on the part of the respondents, who were empty-handed, and that the ocular testimony suffered from major contradictions and discrepancies. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be interfered with unless the judgment is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or fanciful. Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal can be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish common intention?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime sufficiently connect them to the offence without proof of overt acts?
  • Whether contradictions in the testimonies of closely related ocular witnesses warrant giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • What threshold of proof is required to dislodge the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Ahmed and others vs Lasbella University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbella though its Registrar and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 997, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 239, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1291 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-25
  service statutesdeputy registrarpromotion quotainitial recruitmentselection boardconstitutional petitionviolation of rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Deputy Registrar (BPS-18) at Lasbella University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, contending it violated the 50/50 quota rule for initial recruitment and promotion under the relevant service statutes. The core legal question was whether the university could promote a candidate to a post designated for initial recruitment when the promotion quota post was already occupied. The Balochistan High Court held that once the promotion quota post had been filled and remained occupied under the governing rules, subsequent vacancies must be filled through initial recruitment, and filling them via promotion was unlawful and malicious. The court laid down the principle that statutory rules governing appointment methods and quotas must be strictly followed in letter and spirit, and when the law prescribes a specific manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a university can promote a candidate to a post designated for initial recruitment under prescribed service quotas?
  • Can a promotion be sustained when the promotion quota post is already occupied by another incumbent?
  • Whether the courts are duty-bound to examine the integrity of the selection process when statutory rules are breached?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Muhammad vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 232 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-30
  kidnapping for ransomjudicial confessiondelayed confessionidentification paradebenefit of doubtwithheld witnessanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for kidnapping for ransom and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and admissibility of a delayed retracted judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the credibility of an identification parade conducted after a significant delay without assigning specific roles, and the application of Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 regarding withheld material witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that unexplained delays in recording confessions and conducting identification parades vitiate their evidentiary value, and withholding best evidence draws adverse presumptions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 affects its voluntariness and evidentiary value?
  • Does an identification parade conducted days after the arrest of an accused, without attributing specific roles, lose its legal sanctity?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when the prosecution withholds the best available piece of evidence?
  • Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be sustained solely on compromised identification and retracted confessions without corroborative material?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Land Route Custom Agent Association through Secretary2019 CLC 316 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Akhter Muhammad vs The State2019 YLR 2603 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-16
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubtconfessional statementillegal detentionpolice remandextra-judicial confessionmedical evidenceforensic reportacquittal
  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. The core legal questions involved the reliability of contradictory eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of extra-judicial and judicial confessions recorded during illegal police confinement exceeding the statutory remand period, the necessity of medical/post-mortem evidence to prove unnatural death, and the evidentiary value of an unverified forensic report regarding the alleged crime weapon. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, inadmissible confessional statements procured during illegal detention, lack of medical evidence establishing the cause of death, and failure to produce positive Forensic Science Laboratory reports. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and ordered his immediate acquittal and release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on a judicial or extra-judicial confession recorded after the expiry of the permissible police remand period during illegal confinement?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to produce medical or post-mortem evidence to establish the unnatural death of the deceased?
  • Does the failure to produce a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the crime weapon vitiate the recovery evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions and dishonest improvements by the sole eyewitness warrant an outright rejection of testimony without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Ghulam Jan and 2 others2019 YLR 2374 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondancemotivetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the accused respondents by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant contended that the accused were nominated in the FIR, had a motive due to previous enmity, and had remained absconders for several years. The High Court examined the record and observed that the case was based on presumptions, with no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and no recoveries effected from the accused. The Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and that the burden of proving motive lies with the prosecution. Emphasizing that the principles for granting bail differ from those for cancellation, the Court noted that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the trial court's order was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. Finding no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the application, upholding the principle that mere abscondance is insufficient to warrant bail cancellation without evidence of misuse of liberty or tampering with the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere abscondance of an accused sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • Does the burden of proving motive in a criminal case lie on the accused?
  • What are the established legal grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does the absence of eyewitnesses and recoveries justify treating a case as one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 96 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-22
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody of contrabandsafe transmission of samplesFSL reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealnarcotics recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, CNS, Lasbella at Hub, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for the recovery of Charas. The core legal questions involved the legality and admissibility of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the effect of delay in sending samples to the FSL, and the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the contraband. The Balochistan High Court held that the FSL report was defective and inadmissible because samples were sent to the FSL beyond the mandatory seventy-two hours without explanation, the chain of custody and safe transmission through an unproduced carrier were unproven, and the report lacked mandatory signatures, test protocols, and individual test results required by law. The court laid down the principle that strict compliance with statutory rules regarding safe custody, transmission, and laboratory analysis of narcotics is mandatory, and any deviation renders the prosecution case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the prescribed seventy-two hours vitiate the analysis report?
  • Is an FSL report admissible in evidence when it bears the signature of only one Federal Government Analyst instead of the two required by law?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to produce the person who transmitted the contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Must a Government Analyst's report specify the individual test results and protocols applied during the examination of narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs The State and others2019 PCr. LJ 1456 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-24
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtinterested witnessconfessional statementcircumstantial evidenceocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on circumstantial evidence regarding alleged threats and the testimony of a sole eye-witness. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It found that the circumstantial evidence regarding phone threats lacked corroboration, such as Call Detail Records, and the testimony of the sole eye-witness was inconsistent, contradicted by other witnesses, and lacked independent verification. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's confessional statement, noting procedural irregularities in its recording. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is contradictory or unreliable, the accused is entitled to acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically diminish the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence of threats without supporting Call Detail Records?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded after a period of detention where the magistrate fails to explain the delay in judicial remand trustworthy?
  • Does medical evidence alone provide sufficient corroboration to establish the identity of an accused in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem vs The State2019 MLD 1929 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquiryrecovery lacking corroborationquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2018 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantum of recovery, lack of independent corroboration, and absence of further requirement for investigation. The Balochistan High Court held that since the recovery of narcotics lacked independent corroboration, the prosecution was yet to prove conscious knowledge regarding the recovered opium, and the quantum of sentence for the charas recovered was debatable, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The court confirmed the interim bail, establishing that bail may be granted when further detention serves no useful purpose and the case requires deeper appreciation of evidence at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether lack of independent corroboration for narcotics recovery makes a case one of further inquiry under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Should the quantum of sentence likely to be entailed in the circumstances be considered while deciding a bail application?
  • Does continued detention serve any useful purpose after the accused has been shifted to judicial custody following completion of investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 127, 2019 YLR 2907 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  narcotics controlconscious possessionsafe custody of samplesFSL report protocolscriminal appealbenefit of doubtrecovery from house
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge CNS, Dalbandin, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of 38 packets of Charas from a house. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and ownership of the house, whether an inordinate delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiated safe custody and transmission, and whether the non-compliance of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 rendered the FSL report inconclusive. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership or occupation of the house by the appellant, that a 35-day delay in transmitting samples created serious doubts regarding safe custody, and that an FSL report lacking full protocols pursuant to Rule 6 is unreliable. The court laid down the principle that recovery from a house does not ipso facto prove guilt without proof of conscious possession, safe transmission of samples is mandatory, and mandatory compliance with Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules is essential for sustaining a narcotics conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of contraband from a house ipso facto prove the guilt of an accused without establishing conscious possession and ownership?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplainable inordinate delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory in a narcotics case?
  • Whether the non-compliance of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 regarding full test protocols renders the FSL report inconclusive and unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafey vs The State2019 YLR 183 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-04
  pre-arrest bailcross-casesfurther inquiryrule of consistencytribal enmityjurisdiction of High Courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail before arrest application arises from FIR No. 53 of 2017 registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail, contending that the case was a counterblast to an earlier FIR registered against the complainant party and that the matter constituted a case of further inquiry. The core legal questions were whether the applicant could directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail bypassing the trial court, and whether the existence of cross-cases warranted the grant of bail. The Court held that while parties should normally approach the trial court first, exceptional circumstances—such as tribal enmity—allow for direct invocation of the High Court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, given the existence of cross-cases and the uncertainty regarding the initial aggressor, the matter required further inquiry. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court confirmed the applicant's ad-interim pre-arrest bail, noting that the heinous nature of an offense alone does not preclude the grant of bail when the case merits further investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail instead of the trial court in cases of tribal enmity?
  • Does the existence of cross-cases between parties justify treating a bail application as a case of further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency when co-accused in a cross-case have already been granted bail?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offense automatically preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan vs Abdul Hadi and 7 others2019 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi and another vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 442 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-19
  extra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceunseen murderadmissibility of evidencepolice custodysentence enhancementrecovery of crime weaponQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. A connected criminal revision petition sought the enhancement of this sentence to capital punishment. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in an unseen murder case. The Court held that while an extra-judicial confession made in police custody is generally inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, it becomes admissible under Article 40 when it leads to the discovery of incriminating facts, such as the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence—including Call Detail Reports and forensic matching of the recovered weapon—sufficient. The Court declined to enhance the sentence, noting the unseen nature of the crime as a mitigating factor, and modified the financial penalty to compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession made in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of incriminating facts?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in an unseen crime?
  • Does the unseen nature of a crime serve as a mitigating factor against the enhancement of a life sentence to capital punishment?
  • Is a trial court empowered to award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad vs The State through Special Prosecutor ANF, BalochistanPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 256, 2020 YLR 128, 2019 P Cr. L J 1355 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-12
  narcotic substanceschemical analysis reportsafe custodysafe transmissionmandatory rulescriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following his sentencing for the possession of 100 kilograms of hashish. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution's failure to comply with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 renders the chemical analysis report unreliable, and whether the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband. The Balochistan High Court held that Rule 6 is mandatory, requiring the Government Analyst to furnish the full protocol of tests applied; failure to do so renders the report inconclusive and incapable of supporting a conviction. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples, as the individuals responsible were not produced. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential in criminal trials, and that any deviation resulting in doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 mandatory for the validity of a chemical analysis report?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples from the place of recovery to the laboratory invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Are the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on subordinate courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Bakhtiari and others vs Mst. Khalida Bakhtiari and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 6, 2018 YLR 942 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Bakhtiari and 3 others vs Mst. Khalida Bakhtiari and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 6 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed and another vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1159 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-21
  capital punishmentanti-terrorismeye-witness testimonySection 161 CrPCdisclosure statementcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder, arson, and terrorism. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the impact of delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the admissibility of the appellant's disclosure memo. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the recovery of spent cartridges. Regarding the delay in recording witness statements, the Court established that such delay does not automatically invalidate testimony if it is reasonably explained by circumstances like trauma, injury, or bereavement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of new facts, such as the identity of accomplices, is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Finding no mitigating circumstances and noting the heinous nature of the crime, the Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable?
  • Is a disclosure statement made by an accused in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of new facts?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of natural witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime despite minor discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Manager Canteen Store, Department CSD Quetta Cantt. vs Abdul Rehman2018 PLJ Quetta 105 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zarghoon Shah vs Dilawar Khan2018 CLC 511, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 619 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Zarghoon Shah and others vs Dilawar Khan and others2018 CLC 511 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Yasmeen Rehmat vs Secretary Balochistan Public Service Commission2020 [M] C L R 996, 2020 PLJ Quetta 26, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 835 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-18
  constitutional petitionpublic service commissionservice mattermaintainabilityvague petitionfailure to array necessary partydismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the selection process for the post of Lecturer Botany (Female) (B-17) by the Balochistan Public Service Commission, alleging that a less qualified candidate was selected and the petitioner was wrongfully deprived despite higher qualifications. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition challenging a public service commission's selection is maintainable when the petitioner fails to properly identify and array the successful candidate as a respondent, rendering the petition vague and lacking a cause of action. The Balochistan High Court held that the petition was vague, lacked a cause of action, and was not maintainable due to the failure to identify the necessary party, and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine with the observation that the petitioner could approach the court anew upon ascertaining the successful candidate's identity. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of a candidate must properly name and array the affected party, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed as vague and non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging the selection of a candidate by a public service commission is maintainable when the petitioner fails to identify and array the successful candidate?
  • Does a constitutional petition that does not disclose a specific cause of action against the named respondents warrant dismissal in limine?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir and 2 others vs The State2018 MLD 1014 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-20
  sodomyunnatural offencecriminal revisionappreciation of evidencedelay in FIRrelated witnessessolitary statement of victimmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioners under Section 377 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing unnatural sexual intercourse. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's case given the delay in FIR registration, the reliance on related witnesses, and the significant delay in submitting evidence to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution’s ocular evidence, particularly the victim's testimony, was consistent, direct, and confidence-inspiring. The court affirmed that in cases of sodomy or zina, the solitary statement of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is credible. Furthermore, the court ruled that a delay in lodging an FIR is natural in cases involving social stigma and family honor, and that a defective Forensic Science Laboratory report does not necessitate acquittal when other sufficient incriminating evidence exists. The conviction and sentences were maintained, and the petitioners were ordered to be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is the solitary statement of a victim sufficient to sustain a conviction in cases of sodomy or zina?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case in matters involving social stigma?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the Forensic Science Laboratory report is considered defective due to delay?
  • Are related witnesses considered competent to testify in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Daraz vs Judicial Magistrate-IX, Quetta and 2 others2019 PLJ Quetta 20, 2018 PLD Balochistan 91 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan vs Abdul Nafay and another2018 MLD 287 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-16Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain and others vs Govt. of Balochistan through Secretary2018 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Tahir Shah and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 242 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-30
  murdercircumstantial evidencehomicidesuicideunnatural conductburden of prooflast seenmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Noshki, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased (wife of appellant Tahir Shah). The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, medical reports showing death by suffocation/homicide, and the unnatural conduct of the husband. The defense contended that the deceased committed suicide due to depression. The High Court evaluated the evidence, noting that the occurrence took place in the shared house of the husband and the deceased, and the husband failed to provide any plausible explanation for her unnatural death under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court upheld the conviction of the husband, Tahir Shah, but acquitted the co-accused, Abdul Karim Shah, due to a lack of connecting evidence. The revision petition for the enhancement of the sentence was dismissed as the trial court had already awarded a sufficient sentence based on mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of an inmate shifts to them under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a spouse is found dead in the shared house?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial and medical evidence in the absence of direct ocular testimony?
  • What is the legal effect of an accused's failure to offer a plausible explanation for the unnatural death of their spouse occurring within their domestic domain?
  • Whether the unnatural conduct of an accused spouse post-occurrence can serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasrullah vs The Director General Pakistan Sports Board, Islamabad and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 367 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-27
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory bodyservice grievancetermination of servicemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as a Sub-Engineer (BPS-16) by the Pakistan Sports Board. The core legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against a non-statutory body where service conditions are not governed by statutory rules. The Court held that the petition was non-maintainable, dismissing it accordingly. The ratio decidendi established that because the Pakistan Sports Board is a non-statutory body and lacks statutory rules governing the service conditions of its employees, the relationship between the employer and employee is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant.' Consequently, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge service grievances in such cases. The Court affirmed that in the absence of statutory rules, an aggrieved employee must seek redress through a court of competent jurisdiction rather than through a writ petition, despite noting that the petitioner's termination appeared to be based on a misconception of a previous court order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against a non-statutory body?
  • Does the principle of 'Master and Servant' apply to employees of the Pakistan Sports Board?
  • Can an employee of a non-statutory body seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition in the absence of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Special Public Prosecutor, Anti-Corruption vs Allah Dina---2018 YLR 187 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-15
  criminal acquittal appealcorruptionforgerydouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencemutationbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which acquitted the respondent of charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, a Patwari, facilitated the illegal transfer of property for an accused person by falsifying mutation records to show the transaction occurred on September 22, 2008, while the accused was in judicial custody. The High Court examined the evidence and determined that the mutation was actually attested on October 14, 2008, a date when the accused was on bail. Finding no evidence to connect the respondent to the alleged offense, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and warrants no interference unless the trial court's decision is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal carry a double presumption of innocence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Is a mutation record conclusive proof of the date of property transfer when challenged by prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Special Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Establishment vs Allah Dina2018 MLD 546 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-15
  acquittal appealforgery of mutationdouble presumption of innocencehandwriting expertanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent Patwari was acquitted of charges under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the accused fraudulently transferred the complainant's land through forged mutation entries by using fake signatures. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant setting aside an acquittal. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations, notably by omitting to send the disputed signatures to a Handwriting Expert for verification and failing to produce confidence-inspiring evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an order of acquittal, which cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or capricious, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal can be interfered with when the prosecution fails to prove its case through confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to obtain an opinion from a Handwriting Expert to prove fake signatures in forgery cases?
  • What is the standard of proof required to set aside a judgment of acquittal enjoying a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor-General, NAB vs Farooq Choudhary through Executive Officer_Secretary, Cantonment Board. Quetta and others2018 P Cr. L J 300 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-11
  recovery of finelimitation perioddefault imprisonmentNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal appealexecution of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Ehtesab Appeal challenged an order of the Accountability Court, which dismissed the State’s application for the recovery of fines imposed on the respondents following their conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the State could recover fines after the expiration of the six-year limitation period prescribed by Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and whether such recovery is permissible after the offenders have already served the substantive imprisonment sentence and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The Balochistan High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal. The Court held that the application for recovery was time-barred, as it was filed well beyond the six-year period stipulated in Section 70, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle under Section 386, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that once an offender has served the full term of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine, the court is precluded from issuing a warrant for the levy of that fine. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a fine be recovered after the six-year limitation period prescribed by Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the service of imprisonment in default of payment of fine preclude a court from issuing a warrant for the levy of that fine under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an application for recovery of fine filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation period maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor-General Accountability, NAB vs Ghulam2018 P Cr. L J 797 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-13
  assets beyond known sources of incomeNAB referenceacquittal appealburden of proofmisreading of evidenceremandbenami transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Accountability Court in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference concerning the accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence and misapplied the burden of proof regarding unexplained wealth. The High Court held that the trial court’s judgment was flawed, as it failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence, ignored the legal requirement for the accused to justify assets under Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, and disregarded previous remand directions. The Court emphasized that when a trial court’s reasoning is speculative or based on a misinterpretation of evidence, the appellate court must re-examine the entire record. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, ruling that the trial court failed to apply the statutory presumption of guilt regarding unexplained assets. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision to be consolidated with the proceedings against the co-accused, ensuring a comprehensive adjudication of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, when assets are disproportionate to known sources of income?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court set aside an acquittal and remand a case for fresh trial?
  • Is a trial court required to consolidate the trial of an accused with their co-accused when the allegations arise from the same set of facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Soomar Khan vs The State2018 MLD 1190 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-18
  criminal appealattempted murderbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidenceappraisal of evidenceacquittalocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to eight years rigorous imprisonment with Arsh, arising from an FIR registered at Levies Thana Gandawah. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions among star witnesses, discrepancies regarding the date and time of the FIR and investigation proceedings, and existing enmity between the parties. The Balochistan High Court held that glaring contradictions, inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, and questionable timing of the police report rendered the prosecution's evidence untrustworthy and created a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. The court established the key principles that the testimony of independent witnesses must still be scrutinized for inherent probability rather than accepted blindly, that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that the benefit of doubt must be extended where the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of impartial or disinterested witnesses can be accepted without corroboration if their statements are improbable or inconsistent?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • How do material contradictions regarding the time and manner of lodging an FIR affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material counts and the recovery of crime weapons is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafee Muhammad vs The State2018 YLR 2610 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-22
  criminal appealmurdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceocular testimonyconfessional statementSection 382-B Cr.P.C.plea of alibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, citing contradictions in testimony and the inadmissibility of confessions. The court reviewed the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's family, which it found credible and natural, and upheld the conviction, noting that the appellant's extra-judicial confession and subsequent recovery of the weapon corroborated the prosecution's case. However, the court found the imposition of the death penalty unwarranted. It reasoned that since multiple assailants were involved in the indiscriminate firing and it remained uncertain whose specific bullet caused the fatal injury, the capital sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment reaffirms that while consistent ocular testimony and voluntary confessions support a conviction, the quantum of sentence must reflect the specific evidentiary certainty regarding the fatal act in cases involving multiple assailants.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession followed by the recovery of a crime weapon admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the uncertainty regarding which assailant's shot caused the fatal injury in a joint attack warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of natural witnesses who are family members of the deceased?
  • What are the essential requirements for accepting a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1297 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-15
  murder convictionocular evidencedelayed FIRinterested witnessmitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased, and a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the delay in lodging the FIR was naturally explained by the distance of the village and the immediate need to attend to the deceased, and that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested or unreliable if their testimony is otherwise trustworthy. The Court maintained the sentence of life imprisonment, citing previous enmity as a mitigating factor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is reasonably explained?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence alone without corroboration?
  • Does the existence of previous enmity between the parties constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjid Ahmed and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Director General and others2018 PLJ Quetta 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State2018 MLD 751 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-26
  circumstantial evidenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal revisionadverse inferenceextra-judicial confessionrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of a disclosure statement made to police, and the validity of a delayed identification parade. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It ruled that a confession made to police is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that a delayed identification parade, conducted without satisfactory explanation, lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution’s failure to produce the Magistrate who supervised the identification parade warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of that doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure statement made by an accused while in police custody admissible as evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce the Magistrate who supervised an identification parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a delayed identification parade conducted without a satisfactory explanation?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a single link in the chain of circumstantial evidence entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Niamatullah and 2 others2018 YLR 1240 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Saeedan Bibi vs The State2018 YLR 1674 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-16
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesfurther inquiryprohibitory clauserecovery of charascompletion of investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Saeedan Bibi under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking bail in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of two kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery, non-inclusion of the informant in the witness list, and completion of the investigation. The Balochistan High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, noting that the informant bus munshi was not cited as a witness, the bus registration number was absent from the FIR, and the bus ticket was not seized. The court laid down the principle that the quantity of contraband and the expected quantum of punishment must be considered at the bail stage, and where investigation is complete and physical custody is no longer required, further inquiry warrants the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-inclusion of the informant bus munshi as a witness and failure to mention the bus registration number in the FIR makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the quantity of contraband and expected quantum of punishment affect the grant of bail in offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation has been finalized and the physical custody of the accused is no longer required by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Begum and 4 others vs Mst. Habib-U-Nisa and others2018 CLC 1943 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed etc vs Members Judicial Selection Board Hon'ble High2018 PLC (C.S.) 263, 2018 PLJ Quetta 91 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-16
  Civil Judge recruitmentJudicial Selection Boardzonal allocationquota systemArticle 27viva vocediscretion of selection boardconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the recruitment process for the posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate and Qazi (BPS-18). The petitioners contended that the appointments should have been made under the Government of Balochistan Recruitment Policy of 1991 observing zonal allocation rather than on an open merit basis, and alleged violations of the merit list regarding viva voce performance.

  The High Court of Balochistan dismissed the petitions, holding that Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibits discrimination in public appointments, while its first proviso is merely an enabling and permissive provision allowing authorities to reserve posts, but does not impose a mandatory duty to enforce a quota system or zonal allocation. Consequently, citizens have no vested legal right to compel an employer to provide reserved seats. Furthermore, the court held that the Judicial Selection Board is the best judge of a candidate's suitability during viva voce, and courts will not interfere with its evaluation absent mala fides or extraneous considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Is the first proviso to Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandatory or merely permissive regarding the reservation of posts for specific areas or classes?
  • Does a citizen have a vested legal right to compel the government or an employing authority to enforce a quota system or zonal allocation for public appointments?
  • Under what circumstances may a court interfere with the evaluation and findings of a Judicial Selection Board regarding a candidate's performance in a viva voce examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed and another vs Members Judicial Selection Board and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 263 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-16
  constitutional petitionzonal allocationrecruitment policyservice of Pakistanviva voceselection boardjudicial reviewfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed against the recruitment process for the posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate and Qazi (BPS-18), wherein petitioners contended that appointments were made on merit rather than in accordance with the Government of Balochistan Recruitment Policy of 1991 and zonal allocations. The core legal questions involved whether the government is under a mandatory constitutional obligation to observe zonal quotas in public appointments and whether the court can interfere with the evaluation and assessment of candidates by a selection board comprising High Court judges. The court held that Article 27(1) of the Constitution prohibits discrimination but its proviso concerning the reservation of posts for specific areas is merely enabling and permissive, creating no vested right for citizens to demand a quota system. Furthermore, the court held that the assessment of candidates through viva voce by an expert selection board is not open to judicial interference absent mala fides. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan imposes a mandatory duty on governments and authorities to reserve posts for persons belonging to specific areas or classes?
  • Does a citizen have a vested right to seek a court direction compelling the government or an authority to apply a quota system or zonal allocation for public employment?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the evaluation, assessment, and selection of candidates made by an expert selection board?
  • Whether the proviso to Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan is mandatory or merely enabling and permissive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and another vs Mst. Anwar Sultana and others2018 PLJ Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sadullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 999 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-25
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurderaerial firinginterested witnessescriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for murder, alongside a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of that sentence. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his role in the murder of the deceased, where he acted in concert with absconding co-accused. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who was attributed the role of aerial firing while a co-accused fired the fatal shot, could be held vicariously liable for murder under the doctrine of common intention. The Court held that the appellant’s presence, participation, and shared conduct with the co-accused established a common intention to commit the crime. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the trial court correctly applied the principle of vicarious liability and that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the specific role attributed to the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that common intention can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances of the occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they only performed aerial firing while a co-accused fired the fatal shot?
  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased automatically render them 'interested witnesses' whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is otherwise consistent and corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Can common intention be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the occurrence even in the absence of direct evidence of a pre-arranged plan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadullah and another vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-04
  speedy trialdue processcriminal proceduresessions court jurisdictiondormant casesabeyance of proceedingsSection 249 CrPCSection 344 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal revision and quashment petitions challenging trial court orders that placed criminal cases in 'dormant' or 'abeyance' status due to the non-availability of prosecution witnesses. The core legal question is whether a Court of Session possesses the jurisdiction to stop proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or to adjourn cases sine die for an indefinite period. The Court held that Sessions Courts lack the authority to keep cases in abeyance or stop proceedings indefinitely, as Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies specifically to Magisterial trials under Chapter XX, not Sessions trials under Chapter XXII-A. Furthermore, the Court ruled that indefinite adjournment under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is impermissible. The key principles laid down are that courts cannot supply omissions in a statute unless legislative intent is clear; that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973; and that Sessions Courts must strictly adhere to statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the power to stop proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Sessions Court adjourn a criminal trial sine die for an indefinite period due to the non-availability of witnesses?
  • Is the right to a speedy trial considered a fundamental right under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court supply omissions in a statute to fill gaps in the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddar-Ud-Din vs The State2018 YLR 507 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-17
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesocular testimonymedical evidenceacquittalindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court observed that the four eyewitnesses, all close relatives of the deceased, provided testimony that lacked credibility; they failed to mention each other's presence, did not attempt to rescue the deceased, and escaped unhurt despite the alleged indiscriminate firing. Furthermore, the medical evidence was insufficient to conclusively link the death to the specific injuries sustained. The court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, whenever a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses is inconsistent and fails to account for their own safety during the incident?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a death certificate or link the death to the alleged injuries create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains significant inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 130 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-05
  murder convictioncompromise deedlegal heiroral marriageQisas and Diyatjudicial confessionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a remand by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine the validity of a compromise deed under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the deceased’s alleged husband, Muhammad Fayyaz, qualified as a legal heir, thereby rendering his participation essential for a valid compromise. The Court examined evidence regarding the deceased's previous elopement and subsequent marriage to Fayyaz, concluding that despite the absence of a formal Nikkah Nama, oral marriage is recognized in the prevailing social context. Consequently, the Court held that Fayyaz was the legal heir and, absent his participation, the compromise deed was ineffective. The Court further affirmed the conviction based on the testimony of natural witnesses, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the appellant's judicial confession. The principle laid down is that in the absence of a complete compromise involving all legal heirs, a compromise deed cannot be given effect in a case of Ta'zir. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise deed be considered valid under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if a legal heir has not participated?
  • Is an oral marriage recognized as valid for the purpose of establishing legal heirship in criminal proceedings?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are police officials in a murder case?
  • Does a partial compromise have any bearing on the conviction of an accused in a case of Ta'zir?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana and others vs Asmatullah and 3 others2018 PLJ Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →