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. 2,435 judgments in total from the Federal Shariat Court.

• Qaiser and 4 others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 58 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-03-01
  Zina-bil-JabrabductionenticementNikah validitycriminal appealbenefit of doubtHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of five appellants for abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the charges of abduction and rape beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the defense's plea of a valid marriage (Nikah) exonerated the main accused. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's narrative of forcible abduction in broad daylight was inconsistent and improbable, as the victim failed to raise an alarm despite the presence of family members. Consequently, the court acquitted four appellants due to insufficient evidence of their participation. Regarding the main accused, the court rejected the validity of the alleged Nikah, finding that the victim was enticed away and subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse. The court laid down the principle that where a defense of valid marriage is raised, it must be weighed against the victim's testimony of abduction and non-consent; furthermore, even if abduction under Section 11 is not proven, the act of enticing a woman for illicit intercourse constitutes an offense under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a victim to raise an alarm during an alleged abduction in a public or populated area cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be altered to Section 16 if the element of enticement is proven?
  • Does a plea of valid marriage (Nikah) automatically exonerate an accused from charges of Zina-bil-Jabr if the victim denies consent and the marriage's validity?
  • Is the testimony of a victim who claims to have escaped from custody sufficient to rebut a defense of a consensual marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Masih vs State2006 PLJ FSC 11 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-18
  criminal appealextra-judicial confessionadmissibility of evidencerecovery of weaponcorroboratory evidenceQanun-e-Shahadat Ordermurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was based on an alleged confession made to police and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained on such evidence in the absence of direct or substantive testimony. The Federal Shariat Court held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. While Article 40 permits the admission of information leading to the discovery of a fact, the recovery of the weapon was merely corroboratory evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that, in the absence of direct or substantive evidence, a conviction cannot be recorded based solely on corroboratory evidence, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case insufficient, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused?
  • Can a conviction be based solely on the recovery of a weapon in the absence of direct or substantive evidence?
  • Under what circumstances is information received from an accused in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Noshad vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 171 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-01
  sodomyzinaplea of alibiminor victim testimonycriminal appealsentence reductionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to ten years' R.I. and seven years' R.I. respectively. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the charge of sodomy and kidnapping for illicit intercourse beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the plea of alibi raised by the appellant was tenable. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent ocular testimony of the minor victim, corroborating statements of eye-witnesses, and positive medical and chemical examiner reports, while the defence of alibi was an afterthought. The court upheld the conviction under both counts but reduced the sentence to three and a half years' R.I. in view of the appellant's youth and the lenient treatment extended to co-accused. The key principle laid down is that reliable testimony of a minor victim supported by medical evidence and corroborating eyewitness accounts is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Hudood laws and the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim of sodomy is sufficient for conviction when supported by medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to establish enmity between the accused and the complainant party strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a sentence based on the youth of the convict and lenient treatment given to co-accused?
  • Is a plea of alibi successfully established when the defence witness is unaware of the registration of the case until arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Noshad vs State2006 PLJ FSC 306 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-01
  sodomycriminal appealconvictionalibisentence reductionHudood lawscorroborationvictim testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the abduction and sodomy of a minor. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of the victim's testimony, and the validity of the appellant's plea of alibi. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the victim's testimony was consistent and corroborated by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. The court rejected the appellant's alibi, noting the defense witness was unreliable and the appellant failed to demonstrate any enmity that would warrant false implication. While upholding the conviction, the court exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence from ten years to three and a half years, citing the appellant's youth and the principle of parity with co-accused who had previously received more lenient sentences. The key principle established is that consistent victim testimony, supported by medical and eyewitness corroboration, suffices for conviction, while sentencing should reflect parity among co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the victim's testimony is corroborated by eyewitnesses and medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of enmity between the accused and the complainant strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Is a plea of alibi sufficient to rebut prosecution evidence when the defense witness is found unreliable?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to maintain parity with co-accused who received more lenient treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 117 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-27
  Qazfsecondary evidenceadmissibility of documentcertified copyoral testimonyhearsaycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 7(1) of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly making a false imputation of unchastity against the complainant during his deposition in a family suit. The core legal question was whether the contents of a judicial deposition could be proved through oral testimony or an uncertified copy, and whether such evidence was admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Federal Shariat Court held that oral testimony regarding the contents of a written deposition is inadmissible under Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that an uncertified copy lacking the mandatory seal of the copying agency cannot be relied upon. The court established that a deposition must be proved by the written record itself and that secondary or copy evidence must strictly comply with legal requirements and rules of practice. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can oral testimony be used to prove the contents of a deposition previously reduced to writing in judicial proceedings?
  • Whether an uncertified copy of a judicial statement lacking the prescribed copying agency seal is admissible in evidence under Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does a statement regarding an incriminating remark conveyed through a third party carry evidentiary value amounting to direct proof?
  • Can an accused person be penalized for the trial court's failure to address an objection raised regarding the admissibility of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs State2006 PLJ FSC 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Nayyar Abbas and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-29
  Zina-bil-Jabrconsentbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidenceabductionhudoodcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, convicting the appellants under section 10(4) and section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, as well as sections 459, 506, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code, resulting in sentences including death and life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellants forcibly entered the house of the complainant, abducted her, and committed Zina-bil-Jabr. The Federal Shariat Court examined the medical evidence, the absence of signs of struggle, the fact that the victim was wearing shoes, and the surrounding circumstances, noting that these factors rendered the theory of forcible abduction doubtful and suggested the possibility of consent. Holding that the benefit of doubt regarding consent must be extended to the accused, the Court set aside the death sentence and convictions under sections 11, 459, 506, and 337-A(i), altering the conviction under section 10(4) to section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing the appellants to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a victim regarding forcible abduction can be doubted when attending circumstances such as wearing shoes and absence of struggle indicate consent?
  • Can a conviction under section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, be altered to section 10(2) when the evidence points towards the possibility of consent?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding injuries sustained by witnesses warrant the setting aside of convictions under sections 459, 506, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayyar Abbas and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 35 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali alias Jaffar and 3 others vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 329 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-19
  consecutive sentencesconcurrent sentencesrobberygrievous hurtsentencing policydouble jeopardycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which convicted the appellants under Sections 324, 394, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery and causing grievous hurt during a house trespass. The appellants were sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly ordered the sentences to run consecutively and whether the convictions were sustainable given the evidentiary record regarding the cause of death of the victims. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony and recovery of stolen property sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court modified the sentencing structure. Relying on the principle that multiple convictions for overlapping offences arising from a single transaction should not lead to duplicative punishment, the Court held that while consecutive sentencing is generally permissible under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the sentences for Sections 324 and 460 should run concurrently with the sentence for Section 394 to avoid excessive punishment for the same criminal transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences awarded by a Sessions Judge in an original trial?
  • Can sentences for multiple offences arising from the same criminal transaction be ordered to run consecutively if they involve overlapping elements?
  • Is a court legally competent to order consecutive sentences for offences under Sections 324, 394, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali alias Jaffar and 3 others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 71 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 600 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-05
  Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancewilful Zinabona fide marriagelegitimacy of childcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, convicting the appellants under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and sentencing them to four years' rigorous imprisonment each. The core legal question was whether the appellants committed wilful Zina given their long-standing cohabitation of approximately 13 years, the birth of a child, and their bona fide belief in a valid marriage arising from domestic disputes, enmity, and a pending writ petition regarding a jactitation of marriage suit. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions. The Court held that since the appellants cohabited under a bona fide belief of a valid marriage and the prosecution failed to establish wilful Zina—especially in light of precedents protecting the legitimacy of children and requiring wilfulness under section 4 of the Ordinance—the conviction could not be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for Zina under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 when cohabiting under a bona fide belief of a valid marriage?
  • Does the term 'Zina' under section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 require the act to be wilful?
  • What is the effect of long-standing cohabitation and the birth of a child on the presumption of a bona fide marital relationship in Hudood cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-05
  zinavalid marriagebona fide beliefwilful zinalegitimacy of childcounter-blast casecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, convicting the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly living in an adulterous relationship. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the absence of a valid marriage and whether the appellants acted with the requisite wilful intent constituting zina, considering their long-standing cohabitation of over thirteen years, a child born from the union, and a background of bitter family enmity. The Federal Shariat Court held that where a plea of valid marriage is bona fide and not frivolous, and where cohabitation is long-standing with a child born of the relationship, the element of wilfulness required for the offence of zina is absent. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that Islam leans heavily in favour of the legitimacy of a child.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be sustained when the accused persons have been living together as spouses with a bona fide belief in a valid marriage?
  • Does the requirement of wilfulness under Section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 protect couples whose marriage plea is not frivolous or absolutely baseless?
  • Can a criminal prosecution for zina be maintained where a bitter background of enmity and counter-blast litigation exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem alias Kalu vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 364 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-19
  criminal appealgiving up witnesseswon-over witnessesjudicial confessionmandates of Section 164 Cr.P.C.powers of court under Section 540 Cr.P.C.remand of caseOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian District Kasur, convicting the appellant under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of the prosecution giving up material eye-witnesses as 'won-over' and the admissibility and evidentiary value of a judicial confessional statement recorded without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the public prosecutor cannot arbitrarily withhold material witnesses, and trial courts must utilize their powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon such witnesses to ascertain the truth. Furthermore, a confessional statement recorded in violation of mandatory statutory safeguards is devoid of evidentiary value. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for retrial after examining the given eye-witnesses as court witnesses and excluding the flawed confession.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution arbitrarily give up material eye-witnesses during a criminal trial under the pretext of them being won-over?
  • What is the scope and extent of the trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses essential for a just decision?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements for recording a valid judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and what is the effect of non-compliance?
  • Whether a judicial confession recorded immediately after the production of an accused from custody without removing handcuffs or providing time for reflection is legally admissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem alias Kalu vs State2006 PLJ FSC 106 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and others vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1010 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-30
  sodomyunnatural offencejuvenile offendercredibility of victimhudood ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of three appellants under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether taking away a minor victim specifically for the purpose of committing sodomy constitutes abduction under the Hudood laws or an offence solely under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the conviction could be sustained on the solitary, trustworthy statement of the victim despite the rejection of the eyewitness testimony of the complainant. The Federal Shariat Court held that when a child is removed for committing sodomy, Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is inapplicable, setting aside the conviction under that section while maintaining the conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the reliable testimony of the victim. The court laid down the principle that the uncorroborated yet trustworthy and unshaken testimony of a victim of sodomy is sufficient to base a conviction, and that the removal of a victim for sodomy rather than forcible abduction attracts Section 377 rather than abduction-related Hudood provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is applicable when a victim is removed specifically for committing sodomy rather than abduction?
  • Can a criminal conviction for sodomy be sustained solely on the uncorroborated and trustworthy testimony of the victim when the eyewitness account of the complainant is rejected?
  • Whether the sentence of a juvenile offender convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be mitigated considering his age?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 212 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-30
  sodomyabductionjuvenile offendervictim testimonycriminal appealOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal appeals against a trial court judgment convicting the appellants for offences related to sodomy and abduction. The core legal questions were whether the conviction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 was sustainable when the victim was taken specifically for the purpose of sodomy, and whether a conviction could be sustained based on the victim's testimony alone despite the unreliability of the complainant's eyewitness account. The Court held that the conviction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 was legally unsustainable because the victim was removed for the purpose of sodomy rather than abduction, and thus acquitted the appellants of that specific charge. However, relying on the victim's consistent and credible testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the Court upheld the convictions under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that where a victim is removed for the purpose of committing sodomy, the offence of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is not attracted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable when the victim was removed for the purpose of committing sodomy?
  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained based solely on the testimony of the victim if the complainant's testimony is found unreliable?
  • Does the removal of a child for the purpose of sodomy constitute abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 266 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-15
  Zina-bil-razaabandonment of childevidentiary value of statementSection 342 CrPCburden of proofacquittalHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 328 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the abandonment of a newborn infant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the appellants were the parents of the abandoned child and had committed the offence of Zina. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to provide any incriminating evidence linking the appellants to the child or proving a sexual relationship between them. The Court emphasized that convictions cannot rest on conjectures or surmises, such as presuming illegitimacy based on the marital status of the accused. Furthermore, the Court established that statements recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which are self-exculpatory or attempt to shift blame to a co-accused, possess no evidentiary value to prove guilt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted due to the lack of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained solely on the basis of conjecture regarding the marital status of the accused?
  • Does a statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which incriminates a co-accused, constitute substantive evidence of guilt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the parentage of an abandoned child before securing a conviction under Section 328 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs State2006 PLJ FSC 118 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-11
  dacoityQatl-e-Amdextra-judicial confessionpolice custodydeath sentenceinjured eyewitnessfirst offendercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for dacoity and the murder of two individuals, alongside causing injuries to others. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody and whether the status of a first-time offender warrants a lenient sentence in a double murder case. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was sound, relying on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime, and the appellant's apprehension at the scene. The Court clarified that an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody is inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. However, the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Regarding sentencing, the Court established that the normal penalty for Qatl-e-Amd is death, and in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the status of a first-time offender does not justify a reduced sentence, particularly in cold-blooded cases. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while an accused is in police custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does the status of a first-time offender automatically entitle a convict to a lenient sentence in a case of double murder?
  • What is the normal penalty for Qatl-e-Amd when the prosecution case is fully proved?
  • Can the testimony of injured eyewitnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs State2006 PLJ FSC 203 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-20
  concurrent sentencesfunctus officioco-accused parityhudood casesinherent powerssentencing policycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed by the applicant seeking to make his sentences of imprisonment in multiple cases run concurrently, similar to the relief granted to his co-accused Abbas Shah. The aggregate sentence amounted to over 43 years. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court became functus officio after deciding the main appeal and whether the benefit of concurrent sentences granted to a co-accused could be extended to the applicant, considering his youth, exemplary jail conduct, and academic achievements during imprisonment. The court held that it was not functus officio as it retained jurisdiction over ancillary matters connected to the case, and extended the benefit of concurrent sentences to the applicant at par with the co-accused. The key principles laid down are that superior courts retain inherent powers to grant ancillary relief such as concurrent sentences even after the disposal of an appeal to secure the ends of justice, and that benefits granted to a co-accused under identical circumstances can be extended to a non-appealing or separately applying co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court become functus officio after deciding an appeal so as to bar subsequent applications for making sentences run concurrently?
  • Can the benefit of concurrent sentences granted to a co-accused be extended to another co-accused whose case is at par?
  • What is the distinction in application between Section 35 and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding multiple convictions?
  • To what extent can the youth and good conduct of a convict in jail serve as grounds for ordering multiple sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 460 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-01-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmatrimonial disputeabductioncorroborationindependent witnessHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which convicted the appellant under Section 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for an alleged abduction attempt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the existence of a long-standing matrimonial dispute and enmity between the parties, and the lack of independent corroborative evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's culpability. The Court noted that all injuries sustained during the incident were caused by blunt weapons, and the specific injury attributed to the appellant was not supported by credible evidence. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the complainant's version in a case marked by admitted enmity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that in cases of admitted enmity, conviction cannot be sustained without independent corroboration of the prosecution's version.

  Questions settled

  • Is independent corroboration of prosecution witnesses essential in criminal cases where there is admitted enmity between the parties?
  • Does the absence of independent evidence regarding the identity of the aggressor in a mutual fight entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction under Section 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the specific allegations of weapon usage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 257 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-10-22
  criminal procedureexamination of accusedsection 342 Cr.P.C.incriminating evidencefair trialremandoffence of Zinaprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 18 read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for attempting to commit Zina. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically by omitting to confront the accused with the incriminating Chemical Examiner's report and failing to obtain the accused's signature on his statement. The Federal Shariat Court held that the examination of an accused under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a mandatory requirement, not a mere formality, intended to provide the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating evidence. The court affirmed that failure to confront an accused with key evidence and the omission to obtain the accused's signature on the statement, as required by section 364(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitutes a fatal illegality. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision, directing the court to properly record the appellant's statement and allow for a defense.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure of a trial court to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during their examination under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a fatal illegality?
  • Does the omission to obtain the accused's signature on a statement recorded under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate the trial proceedings?
  • Is the examination of an accused under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a mandatory requirement or a discretionary act for the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs State2006 PLJ FSC 79 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-10-22
  Section 342 Cr.P.C.Section 364(2) Cr.P.C.statement of accusedcriminal appealremandZina Ordinancefair trialaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 read with Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the trial court's failure to confront the accused with the Chemical Examiner's report during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to obtain the accused's signature on his statement as required by Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the trial proceedings unsustainable. The Court held that the examination of an accused under Section 342 is a mandatory, non-discretionary requirement intended to ensure the principle of audi alteram partem, and that omitting to put incriminating evidence to the accused is a fatal defect. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the requirement for the accused to sign the statement under Section 364(2) is mandatory and not a curable irregularity. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial starting from the stage of recording a proper statement of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is the omission to obtain the signature of the accused on his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Bhatti and others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 93 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-02-16
  conviction for major offenceabsence of chargeZina Ordinanceremand of caseillegal convictionframing of chargeminor and major offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, convicting the appellants under Section 16 and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an accused charged only with a minor or distinct offence under Section 16 could legally be convicted of a graver major offence under Section 10(3) without having been formally charged with it at trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that while an accused charged with a graver offence may be convicted of a minor offence under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused cannot under any circumstances be convicted of a major or graver offence when only charged with a lesser offence, as doing so prejudices the defense and requires distinct facts. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial with proper framing of charges. The key principle laid down is that conviction for a graver/major offence is impermissible if the accused was only charged with a minor or distinct offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person charged only with a minor offence be legally convicted of a graver or major offence for which no charge was framed?
  • Does Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit conviction for a major offence when the accused was only tried for a minor offence?
  • What is the legal effect of omitting to frame a charge under a graver section during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad A'Yub Bhatti and others vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 631 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-02-16
  conviction for major offenceframing of chargeOffence of Zina Ordinanceremand of caseminor and major offencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, convicting the appellants under section 16 and section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an accused charged only with a minor offence under section 16 could legally be convicted of a distinct and graver offence under section 10(3) without having been formally charged with the latter. The Federal Shariat Court held that while an accused charged with a graver offence may be convicted of a minor offence under specific statutory exceptions, an accused charged only with a minor offence can never be convicted of a major or graver offence requiring distinct facts. The court laid down the principle that conviction for a graver offence is legally unsustainable if no charge was framed for it, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh trial with proper framing of charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person charged with a minor offence be convicted of a graver offence for which no charge was framed?
  • Whether the provisions of section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit conviction for a major offence when the accused was charged only with a minor offence?
  • What is the effect of an omission by the trial court to frame a charge under a graver section of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Jan vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 674 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-20
  Zina-bil-JabrZina-bil-RazaHudood Ordinancedelay in FIRpregnancypolice highhandednessremand for retrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The female appellant had initially reported that she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr (rape) by her neighbour on gunpoint, resulting in pregnancy. However, the police arrayed her as a co-accused, and the trial court subsequently convicted both appellants of consensual Zina (Zina-bil-Raza). The Federal Shariat Court examined whether a female complainant who alleges rape can be summarily charged and tried for consensual Zina alongside the accused. The Court held that delay in reporting sexual offences is natural due to social stigma, fear, and family honour, and does not automatically imply consent. It ruled that trial courts must not automatically charge a female complainant under Section 10(2) of the Ordinance unless there is independent evidence of consent. The proper course is to try the male accused for Zina-bil-Jabr first, preserving the complainant's status as a witness. The convictions were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female complainant who alleges rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) can be straightaway charged and tried as a co-accused for consensual sex (Zina-bil-Raza) under Section 10(2) of the Hudood Ordinance 1979?
  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting an offence of Zina necessarily raise a presumption of consent or falsity on the part of the female victim?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court when a male accused is charged by a female with Zina-bil-Jabr but the police submit a challan for Zina-bil-Raza against both?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Jan and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 129 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-20
  zina-bil-jabrzina-bil-razahudood ordinancerape prosecutiondelay in FIRremandpolice highhandednesscomplainant as accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected appeals arising from a conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the female complainant, who had lodged a report of Zina-bil-jabr (rape) against her neighbour resulting in pregnancy, was improperly arrayed and charged by the police and trial court as an accused for Zina-bil-raza (consensual sex) alongside the male accused. The core legal question addressed is whether a female complainant alleging Zina-bil-jabr should automatically be arrayed and charged as an accused for consensual sex merely due to delay in reporting or pregnancy. The Federal Shariat Court held that in cases where a female alleges Zina-bil-jabr, trial courts must not mechanically charge her with Zina-bil-raza without independent evaluation of evidence, and that delay in reporting sexual offences is natural due to societal and psychological factors. The court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial in accordance with law, laying down guidelines for the proper mode of trial in such cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female complainant alleging Zina-bil-jabr can be straightaway charged with Zina-bil-raza merely due to delay in reporting or pregnancy?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court when a female complainant charging a male with Zina-bil-jabr is wrongly arrayed as a co-accused by the police?
  • Does delay in lodging an FIR in sexual offence cases automatically render the allegation false or imply consent?
  • How should trial courts evaluate the statement of a victim of Zina-bil-jabr who faces social stigma and threats from the offender?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghafooran Bibi and 6 others vs Federal Govt. of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice & Human Rights and 4 others2006 PLJ FSC 188 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Ghafooran Bibi and 6 others vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights and 4 otherss2006 P Cr. L J 812 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-13
  Shariat petitionAnti-Terrorism Actcompounding of offencerepugnancy to IslamIslamic Injunctionsdeath sentencejurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Shariat petition challenged Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging it is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as contained in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah because it precludes the right of waiver or compounding of offences by the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the statutory denial of compounding for terrorism-related offences violates Islamic law. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, represents an aggravated form of offence incorporating elements of terrorism, distinct from ordinary murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, and therefore, the rules regarding compounding do not apply. Additionally, the Court established that it lacks jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions or relief in personam in Shariat petitions. Furthermore, it clarified that any declaration of repugnancy by the Court would operate only prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to cases already finalized by the apex Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions or relief in personam in a Shariat petition?
  • Is Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which denies the right of compounding for terrorism-related offences, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does a declaration of repugnancy by the Federal Shariat Court have retrospective effect on cases already decided by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhsh Ilahi vs The State and 6 otherss2006 P Cr. L J 837 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-06
  Qazffalse accusationacquittalfrivolous litigationdouble presumption of innocencecompensationHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a complaint filed by the appellant, Mst. Bakhsh Ilahi, against respondents Nos. 2 to 7 for the offence of Qazf, following a history of protracted civil and criminal litigation between the parties. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient, credible evidence to establish that the respondents had committed the offence of Qazf by making false imputations of immorality against the appellant. The Federal Shariat Court found that the appellant’s allegations were vague, lacked specific details regarding the time and place of the alleged conduct, and were unsupported by credible witness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and that the respondents were falsely implicated due to village factionalism and long-standing enmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. The Court emphasized that the double presumption of innocence in favor of an acquitted accused cannot be disturbed without compelling circumstances and imposed a fine on the appellant for initiating frivolous and malicious litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court disturb an acquittal in the absence of compelling circumstances?
  • Does a vague and unsubstantiated allegation of Qazf constitute sufficient evidence for conviction?
  • Can a court impose a fine on an appellant for initiating frivolous and malicious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhsh Ilahi vs State and 6 others2006 PLJ FSC 263 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Bano vs Umar Baz and anothers2006 P Cr. L J 1101 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-01-26
  private complaintnon-prosecutioncognizable offencesnon-compoundable offencesrevisional jurisdictionZina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancerestoration of complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the orders of the Sessions Judge, Attock, dismissing a private complaint for non-prosecution and refusing its restoration. The core legal question concerns whether a Sessions Court possesses the authority to dismiss a complaint for the complainant's absence under Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when the alleged offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are cognizable and non-compoundable. The Court held that the second proviso to Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, explicitly prohibits such dismissal in cases involving cognizable or non-compoundable offences. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 247 applies to trials by Magistrates under Chapter XX, while proceedings before a Court of Session are governed by Chapter XX-A, which contains no provision for dismissing complaints for non-appearance. Finally, the Court affirmed that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a duty to ensure subordinate courts act lawfully, allowing intervention even where an appeal might be available. The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private complaint be dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the alleged offences are cognizable and non-compoundable?
  • Does the Court of Session have the power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant under Chapter XX-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution if that order is technically appealable?
  • Is a Court of Session competent to take cognizance of an offence directly without the case being sent by a Magistrate under Section 190(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Bano vs Umar Baz and another2006 PLJ FSC 183 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-01-26
  private complaintnon-prosecutioncognizable offencenon-compoundable offencerevisional jurisdictionOffence of ZinaCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the orders of the Sessions Judge, Attock, which dismissed a private complaint for non-prosecution and subsequently refused to restore it. The core legal question is whether a complaint involving cognizable and non-compoundable offences, specifically under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, can be dismissed for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the dismissal was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. The second proviso to Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 explicitly bars the dismissal of complaints for non-prosecution where the offences charged are cognizable or non-compoundable. Furthermore, the Court observed that Chapter XX-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which governs trials before the Court of Session, contains no provision authorizing the dismissal of a complaint due to the absence of the complainant. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private complaint involving cognizable and non-compoundable offences be dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Court of Session have the power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant under Chapter XX-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of dismissal for non-prosecution even if the order is technically appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Saleem and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 969 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-02-23
  abductionZinabenefit of doubthearsay evidencenon-compoundable offencescriminal appealsufficiency of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the convictions of Mohsin Saleem and Shafqat alias Balli for abduction and Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for these offences, particularly when the primary evidence relied upon by the trial court was the victim's pregnancy and subsequent childbirth. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was deficient, noting that the complainant’s testimony was hearsay and that mere pregnancy or childbirth does not conclusively prove the commission of Zina or abduction by the accused. The Court emphasized that while parties had reached a compromise, the offences were non-compoundable, necessitating an evaluation of the merits. Finding the evidence insufficient to warrant conviction and extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that pregnancy or childbirth alone is insufficient evidence to establish the guilt of an accused in Zina cases without corroborative proof of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is pregnancy or childbirth alone sufficient evidence to prove the commission of Zina?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on hearsay evidence from a complainant?
  • Does a compromise between parties in a non-compoundable offence automatically result in acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 344 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-12
  ZinaHudood Ordinancejactitation of marriagelegitimacy of childrenpresumption of marriageadultery
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants, Maqbool Ahmad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi, under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly living in an adulterous relationship. The prosecution alleged that Mst. Nasreen Bibi was already married to another man and had forged documents to enter into a fake marriage with Maqbool Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the appellants were validly married, thereby negating the charge of Zina. The Federal Shariat Court found that the appellants had produced evidence of a valid Nikah and a decree in a suit for jactitation of marriage, which had attained finality. The Court held that the appellants were legally married, and consequently, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that Islamic jurisprudence does not permit declaring children illegitimate for technical reasons, especially when the parents unequivocally admit to the marriage. The key principle laid down is that Section 10(2) of the Ordinance is only attracted if the parties are not validly married; where parties are adults and admit to a marriage, a presumption of validity must be drawn in their favour.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 apply when the accused parties admit to being validly married?
  • What is the legal effect of a decree in a suit for jactitation of marriage on a subsequent criminal charge of Zina?
  • Should a court draw a presumption of valid marriage in favour of adult parties who claim to be husband and wife in a Zina prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs State2006 PLJ FSC 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-03-04
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencerecovery of dead bodyextra-judicial confessionburden of proofmurderconcealment of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor girl and the subsequent concealment of her dead body. The core legal question involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the deceased's dead body from the courtyard of the appellant's house. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and unshakeable ocular and circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the corpse from the appellant's exclusive possession, which shifted the burden to the accused to offer a plausible explanation. The court laid down the principle that where a dead body is recovered from the exclusive premises of an accused upon his pointation, and the last-seen and corroborative circumstantial evidence implicates him, the failure of the accused to offer a credible explanation leads to the sustenance of the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the dead body from the accused's house?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body from the exclusive premises of an accused shift the evidentiary burden onto the accused to explain its presence?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon when corroborated by subsequent recovery of incriminating material and natural ocular testimony?
  • Whether contradictions of a minor nature in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain alias Karma vs State2006 PLJ FSC 163 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-12-15
  unnatural offencesodomyabductionkidnappingbenefit of doubtmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abducted a minor victim and committed an unnatural offence. The trial court convicted the appellant on both counts, while acquitting two co-accused of the abduction charge. The core legal question is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the offence of abduction or kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the conviction for the unnatural offence was sustainable. The Court held that while the evidence of the unnatural offence was consistent, coherent, and supported by medical testimony, the prosecution failed to provide direct or concrete evidence of abduction or kidnapping. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion or inference cannot substitute for legal proof. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 12 of the Ordinance due to insufficient evidence, while upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirming that penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction or kidnapping be sustained based solely on inference in the absence of direct or concrete evidence?
  • Is penetration sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on a specific charge based on insufficient evidence necessitate the acquittal of the main accused on the same charge if the evidence is identical?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehandad etc. vs State and another2006 PLJ FSC 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-12
  military court proceedingsfresh trialconfessional statementssummoning of recordappellate proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from an application filed by the appellants seeking to summon the complete record of a Special Military Court, including statements recorded under Section 340 and Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case where the appellants were subsequently tried afresh by an Additional Sessions Judge following the setting aside of the original military trial by the Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the record of a previous trial by a Military Court, which had been declared null and void and of no legal effect, is relevant to or can be summoned for the adjudication of an appeal arising from a fresh trial conducted by an ordinary court. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the application, holding that since the proceedings before the Military Court were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and a fresh trial was duly conducted with evidence recorded ab initio, the fate of the case hinges solely on the evidence recorded at the subsequent trial, rendering the record of the defunct military proceedings irrelevant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the record of a Special Military Court whose proceedings have been declared of no legal effect can be summoned for consideration in an appeal arising from a fresh trial?
  • Does the fate of a case tried afresh by an ordinary court depend on the evidence recorded at the subsequent trial rather than the previous military proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq alias Shaqu vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 790 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-05-27
  sodomyOffence of Zina Ordinancechild witnessmedico-legal reportcriminal appealcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fines. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the child victim's testimony, the credibility of eyewitness accounts, and the sufficiency of medical and chemical evidence establishing the commission of sodomy. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the child victim gave a cogent and consistent account of the occurrence, which was duly corroborated by the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence confirming injuries and semen-stained garments. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or previous litigation involving the complainant party do not discredit the natural and straightforward testimony of a child victim of sodomy when it is substantially corroborated by medical and ocular evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a child victim in a sodomy case can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the existence of previous litigation involving the complainant party render a criminal charge inherently false?
  • Whether medical evidence showing patulous anus and semen stains is sufficient to corroborate the charge of unnatural offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1988 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-08-17
  criminal appealright to testifySection 340(2) Cr.P.C.procedural irregularityremandevidence on oathfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction handed down by the District and Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The core legal question concerns the trial court's failure to record the appellant's evidence on oath after the appellant had explicitly expressed his willingness to testify under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during his statement under Section 342. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court erred by failing to record the appellant's evidence or, alternatively, failing to record his refusal to testify after he had initially opted to do so. The Court established the principle that once an accused pleads not guilty and expresses a desire to testify on oath under Section 340(2), it creates an imperative duty upon the trial court to facilitate this testimony. If the accused subsequently decides not to testify, the court must formally record this retraction in writing. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to allow the appellant the opportunity to testify on oath or formally decline, followed by a fresh judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person have an absolute right to give evidence on oath in disproof of charges under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court required to record an accused's refusal to testify if the accused previously expressed a willingness to testify under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to record the evidence of an accused who opted to testify under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1978 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-08-16
  criminal appealcross-examinationfair trialhudoodrobberysentencing reductionwitness recall
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 392 and 337-F(i) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising out of a robbery case. The core legal question revolved around whether the appellant was denied a fair trial due to the lack of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses resulting from his counsel's persistent absence, and the proper scope of invoking section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for recalling witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the appellant and his counsel were afforded ample and repeated opportunities over several years to cross-examine the witnesses and conduct their defense, but failed to avail themselves of them, thus constituting an abuse of the court process rather than a denial of a fair trial. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the substantive sentence under section 392, laying down that an accused cannot indefinitely delay proceedings or penalize the judicial process by the deliberate or negligent absence of counsel when adequate opportunities have already been provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person can claim prejudice when ample opportunities for cross-examination were provided but not availed of due to the absence of defence counsel?
  • What are the parameters for exercising discretionary and obligatory powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning or recalling material witnesses?
  • Does the absence of cross-examination render a conviction illegal when the accused and counsel failed to appear or participate despite multiple adjournments over years?
  • Whether the trial court is obligated to provide a state counsel when the accused has not pleaded poverty or inability to engage counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sadiq vs Government of Pakistan2006 PLJ FSC 90 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Nanha and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 449 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-12
  abductionZina-bil-Jabrcounterblastappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 16 and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged abduction and rape of the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in witness testimony and the defense's claim of a counterblast. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the testimonies of the complainant, the alleged victim, and the eyewitness to be unreliable, noting material improvements and contradictions compared to their initial police statements. Furthermore, the medical evidence directly contradicted the victim's allegations of torture and sexual violence. The court observed that the case appeared to be a fabricated counterblast to an earlier abduction case involving the same parties. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, lacks corroboration, and is contradicted by medical reports, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for abduction and Zina can be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Can a criminal case be considered a counterblast when the complainant is an accused in a prior pending case involving the same parties?
  • Is the testimony of an alleged abductee reliable when her statements before the police and the court contain material improvements and contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Nanha and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 173 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-17
  Zina-bil-jabrabductionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealHudood Ordinancecredibility of witnesscounter-blast case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 16 and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged abduction and rape of the complainant's wife. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, or if the case was a fabricated counter-blast to an earlier abduction case registered against the complainant and his wife. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including the lack of corroborative evidence for the abduction, the failure to recover the alleged weapon or vehicle, and the medical evidence contradicting the victim's claims of torture and rape. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the complainant and the alleged victim to be unreliable and riddled with material improvements. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellants, establishing the principle that where prosecution witnesses are unreliable and the narrative is improbable, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution's case is based on testimony that is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to recover the weapon of offense and the vehicle used in an alleged abduction create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a criminal case be considered a counter-blast if it is registered shortly after the complainant is accused in a separate, earlier criminal case?
  • Is the testimony of a prosecution witness reliable when it contains material improvements and contradictions compared to their initial statement to the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 464 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-01
  Zinasentence reductionconsentwhippingcriminal appealOffence of Zina Ordinancerigorous imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for which he was sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine, and whipping. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the sentence given the evidence of the victim's consent and the statutory prohibition on whipping. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction, as the appellant's counsel conceded the guilt and the evidence supported the charge. However, the Court held that the sentence of nine years was excessive, noting the victim's conduct indicated she was a consenting party. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to five years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine. Furthermore, the Court set aside the sentence of whipping, ruling it violative of the Abolition of Whipping Act, 1996. The principle laid down is that while a conviction for Zina may be upheld based on evidence, the sentence must be proportionate to the circumstances, including the victim's consent, and must strictly adhere to statutory prohibitions against corporal punishment like whipping.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of whipping be imposed following the enactment of the Abolition of Whipping Act, 1996?
  • Does evidence of a victim's consent to sexual relations justify a reduction in the sentence for a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 sustainable when the victim's conduct suggests she was a consenting party?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs State2006 PLJ FSC 84 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-01
  zinaabductioncriminal appealreduction of sentencewhippingconsent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal from jail challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution case was that the appellant abducted an eleven-year-old girl, administered an intoxicant to her family, and subjected her to zina over a period of several months. During the trial, the victim, medical experts, and eyewitnesses testified, and the chemical examiner's report confirmed the presence of semen. The appellant's counsel conceded the guilt regarding the conviction but appealed for a reduction in the sentence, pointing out the victim's consenting behaviour and the appellant being a first offender. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment from nine years to five years, maintained the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and set aside the sentence of whipping as being violative of the Abolition of Whipping Act, 1996.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained when supported by victim testimony and medical evidence?
  • Can a sentence of whipping be awarded notwithstanding the provisions of the Abolition of Whipping Act, 1996?
  • Whether the appellate court can reduce the quantum of sentence of imprisonment upon consideration of the victim's conduct and consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza alias Gabban vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1183 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-01-16
  Zina-bil-JabrminoritysentencingOffence of Zina Ordinancecriminal appealage determination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for which he was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, and Section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the appropriate sentencing for the appellant, who was determined by the trial court to be a minor (aged 12 years) at the time of the offence. The Federal Shariat Court examined the medical evidence regarding the appellant's age and the provisions of the Ordinance. The Court held that since the appellant was not an adult at the time of the commission of the offence, the punishment should be governed by Section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, rather than Section 10(3). Consequently, the Court converted the conviction to Section 7 and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, including the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine. The key principle laid down is that the sentencing of a minor for Zina-bil-Jabr must adhere to the specific limitations prescribed for non-adults under the relevant Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sentencing provision for a minor under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, differ from that of an adult?
  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 10(3) to Section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, based on the age of the accused?
  • Is a sentence of imprisonment already undergone sufficient to satisfy a conviction under Section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Shariat Court Allied Engineering and Services Ltd.- vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 469 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-03-21
  Superdaricriminal revisionvehicle custodysale of case property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed before the Federal Shariat Court seeking the deletion of a condition imposed on the sale of a motor vehicle previously given on 'Superdari'. The core legal question concerned the legality of requiring a purchaser to bind themselves to produce a vehicle before a court where no underlying criminal case was pending. The court held that imposing a condition for the production of the vehicle is unjustified when no proceedings require its production before that forum. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned condition requiring the production of the car was deleted from the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a condition for the production of a vehicle on Superdari when no criminal case is pending before it?
  • Whether the delay in filing a revision due to a mistaken choice of forum can be condoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain and others vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1996 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-18
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencessentencing discretioncriminal convictionreformative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by three convicts seeking an order for their sentences in two separate criminal cases to run concurrently. The applicants were convicted in two distinct cases involving different offences committed on the same date: one case under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another involving offences under Sections 353 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretion to order the sentences awarded in these separate trials to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The Federal Shariat Court, considering the submissions of both the applicants' counsel and the Assistant Advocate-General, allowed the application. The Court held that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in the two separate cases shall run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that the Court possesses the discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that sentences in multiple cases against the same convict run concurrently, thereby providing an opportunity for the convicts to reform.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order sentences in two separate criminal cases to run concurrently?
  • Does the court have the discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that sentences in multiple cases against the same convict run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain and 3 others vs The State and anothers2006 P Cr. L J 950 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-31
  abscondersperpetual warrants of arrestfugitive from lawcriminal revisioncontempt of courtZinaproceedings in absentia
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which issued perpetual warrants of arrest against the petitioners after they were declared absconders in a case involving abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who had intentionally absconded from the trial process, were entitled to relief from the High Court despite their fugitive status, particularly given that a co-accused had already been acquitted. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that a fugitive from law and courts forfeits certain procedural and substantive rights. It emphasized that intentional absence, disappearance, or defiance of court processes constitutes contempt and is not to be condoned. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that a person who has absconded from the law cannot seek the indulgence of the court while remaining at large. Consequently, the trial court's order issuing perpetual warrants of arrest was upheld as legally justified, and the petitioners were directed to surrender and participate in the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fugitive from law lose the right to seek relief from the court while remaining at large?
  • Is the issuance of perpetual warrants of arrest justified against an accused who has been declared an absconder?
  • Can an accused who has intentionally defied court processes maintain a petition before the court without first surrendering?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain and 3 others vs State and another2006 PLJ FSC 200 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-31
  revision petitionabsconderproclaimed offenderperpetual warrants of arrestfugitive from lawdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, issuing perpetual warrants of arrest against the petitioners after they were declared absconders in a case registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. While a co-accused was tried and acquitted after being exonerated by the prosecution witnesses, the petitioners remained fugitive from law and failed to appear before the trial court. The core legal question was whether a revision petition by proclaimed offenders/absconders against perpetual warrants of arrest is maintainable while they continue to evade the process of the court. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a fugitive from law loses normal procedural and substantive rights, and intentional absence or defiance of court process amounts to contempt. The court laid down the principle that absconders must surrender or be in custody before seeking relief, and the trial court is fully justified in issuing perpetual warrants of arrest against proclaimed offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fugitive from law can maintain a petition without surrendering or being in custody?
  • Are trial courts justified in issuing perpetual warrants of arrest against accused persons who have been declared absconders?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate ongoing proceedings and warrants against co-accused who are proclaimed offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Danish alias Sunny vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 427 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-06
  sodomyjuvenile offenderprobationcorroboration of evidencecriminal appealjuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of a juvenile appellant for the offense of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and the appropriate sentencing treatment for a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction, finding that the victim's testimony was credible, consistent, and corroborated by the testimony of a witness who arrived immediately after the occurrence, as well as by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that the prosecution had successfully brought the guilt home to the appellant. Regarding sentencing, the Court noted that the appellant had already served his term of imprisonment both in jail and while on probation under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Consequently, the Court ordered the appellant's release upon payment of the imposed fine or completion of the default sentence, effectively discharging his bail bonds. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary standards for sodomy cases while applying the rehabilitative provisions of juvenile justice legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of a victim in a sodomy case require corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a juvenile offender who has served the sentence through a combination of jail time and probation be released upon payment of the fine?
  • What is the effect of probation periods under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 on the finality of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Danish alias Sunny vs State2006 PLJ FSC 160 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-06
  sodomyjuvenile offenderprobationcriminal appealmedical evidencecorroborationFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer Juvenile Court, Islamabad, convicting the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question involved the determination of the appellant's guilt based on ocular and medical evidence, and his status as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully proved the charge through the consistent testimony of the victim, corroborating witnesses, and medical evidence. The court held that where the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction must be maintained, but noted that the appellant had already served his sentence of imprisonment both in jail and on probation. Consequently, the court ordered his release subject to the payment of fine and discharged his bail bonds, laying down principles regarding the appreciation of corroborative evidence in sodomy cases involving juvenile offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a victim of sodomy is sufficient for conviction when supported by medical evidence and timely-lodged FIR?
  • Can a juvenile convict be released upon completion of a sentence served partly in jail and partly on probation under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. strengthen the prosecution case when other evidence is intact?
  Read full judgment →
• Chanaser alias Chanoo and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 806 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-21
  criminal appealrobberyattempted murdersentencing reductioneyewitness testimonyfirst-time offenderArsh
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal appeals filed by the appellants against their convictions and sentences for robbery and attempted murder. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, for offences under sections 324 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where they intercepted the complainant and his nephew on a motorcycle, fired a pistol shot causing injury, and stole the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent eyewitness testimony, prompt lodging of the FIR, and the recovery of the stolen motorcycle. While maintaining the convictions, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentences of imprisonment on both counts to five years, ordering them to run concurrently, while upholding the fines and the payment of Arsh. The principle laid down is that while convictions based on reliable eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence are sound, appellate courts may exercise leniency in sentencing when the accused are first-time offenders and express remorse.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment if the appellants are first-time offenders and express remorse?
  • Does the relationship between the complainant and the injured witness invalidate their testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when based on the identification of the accused by the victims and the recovery of stolen property on the accused's pointation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State and otherss2006 P Cr. L J 662 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-25
  dying declarationrelated witnessinduced abortionQatl Shibh-i-Amddelay in FIRZina
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting and sentencing Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Tasneem Akhtar under various counts including section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sections 338-A/109 and 316/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the complainant appealed against the acquittal of respondents. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a dying declaration testified to by a related witness, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, and whether the offence constituted Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl Shibh-i-Amd where a botched abortion resulted in death. The Federal Shariat Court held that a dying declaration proved through trustworthy testimony can serve as a substantive piece of evidence and forms a safe basis for conviction even if spoken to by a related witness, provided it is corroborated. The Court further held that the distinction between Qatl-i-Amd and Qatl Shibh-i-Amd rests on the presence or absence of an intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, and upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing all three appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis for a criminal conviction if it is proved through reliable evidence?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness whose testimony must be discarded?
  • What is the core distinguishing legal factor between Qatl-i-Amd and Qatl Shibh-i-Amd under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is delay in lodging the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution case in offences involving female honour and illicit pregnancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs State and others2006 PLJ FSC 225 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Basharat Ali and 6 others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 64 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-01-29
  Hudood OrdinancesZina-bil-razacharge framingminor and major offencesillegal convictionsentence reductionFederal Shariat Courtbrothel management
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting various appellants under Sections 7, 10(2), and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with a minor offence under Section 10(2) could be legally convicted of a major or graver offence carrying a heavier penalty, such as Section 14, without a specific charge being framed. The Federal Shariat Court held that while an accused charged with a graver offence may be convicted of a minor offence under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused cannot under any circumstance be convicted of a major or graver offence on the basis of a charge framed only for a minor offence. The court set aside the convictions under Section 14 due to the fatal omission of a proper charge, maintained certain other convictions with modifications, and reduced the sentences of imprisonment for several appellants, taking into account that they were first offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person charged with a minor offence be convicted of a major or graver offence for which no charge was framed?
  • Whether the omission to frame a charge under a graver section of law is fatal to a conviction under that section?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused be convicted of an offence different from the one originally charged under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can appellate courts reduce sentences of imprisonment upon finding mitigating circumstances such as first-time offences and repentance?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal alias Bashan alias Bakhsh Ali vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 182 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-09-26
  criminal appealmandatory procedural requirementsincurable illegalityremandSection 342 statementSection 364(2) certificatetrial vitiation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The core legal question before the Federal Shariat Court was whether the trial court’s failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically the omission to append the required certificate to the accused's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the trial proceedings. The Court held that the examination of an accused under Section 342 is a critical procedural safeguard intended to allow the accused to explain incriminating evidence. The Court determined that the requirements of Section 364(2) are mandatory, and non-compliance constitutes an incurable illegality rather than a curable irregularity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh recording of the accused's statement and a de novo adjudication of the case in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to append the required certificate to an accused's statement under Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity or an incurable illegality?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a mandatory procedural safeguard?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal alias Bashan alias Bakhsh Ali vs State2006 PLJ FSC 304 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-09-26
  statement of accusedcurable irregularityincurable illegalityremand of casekidnapping for rapezina enforcement of hudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while recording the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that non-compliance with Section 364(2) is an incurable illegality rather than a mere curable irregularity, which vitiates the trial proceedings. The court laid down the principle that examination under Section 342 must strictly follow mandatory procedural safeguards to afford the accused full opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, and failure to append the necessary certificate under Section 364(2) requires setting aside the conviction and remanding the case for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a curable irregularity or an incurable illegality?
  • Does the failure to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when the mandatory provisions regarding the recording of an accused person's statement are violated during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar and 3 others vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 387 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-02
  ZinaHudood lawspolice witnessesindependent corroborationcriminal appealreappraisal of evidencefalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of four appellants under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were apprehended by the police during a raid at a hotel while committing Zina. The core legal question before the Federal Shariat Court was whether the uncorroborated testimony of the raiding police officers, in the absence of independent witnesses, hotel records, or credible medical corroboration, was sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution story was inherently improbable and that the evidence of police officials, unsupported by independent corroboration, could not sustain a conviction. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released. The key principle laid down is that police testimony, when uncorroborated by independent evidence and surrounded by suspicious circumstances, is insufficient to establish guilt in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to frame points for determination under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to join independent witnesses from the locality or hotel staff during a raid affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar and 3 others vs State2006 PLJ FSC 125 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-11-02
  Zina Hudood Ordinancepolice witnessesindependent corroborationappellate reversalhotel raid
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of two men and two women under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge Jhang. The core legal question revolves around whether an uncorroborated police-only witness account of an alleged hotel raid, lacking independent corroboration and hotel records, is sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution's version was inherently incredible and that police testimony, unsupported by independent evidence or hotel staff, fails to prove the charge. The key principle laid down is that while police officials can be competent witnesses, their testimony must be examined with utmost care and skepticism when uncorroborated by independent sources, particularly in cases involving dubious circumstances and a lack of tangible proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated testimony of police officials is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the failure to join independent witnesses from a hotel staff during a raid vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the lack of hotel stay records and independent corroboration renders the prosecution story regarding a raid incredible?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs State2006 PLJ FSC 279 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-05-27
  criminal appealSection 342 CrPCexamination of accusedincriminating evidencefair trialremandcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to specifically confront the appellant with incriminating evidence—namely, the recovery of the crime weapon and robbed articles—during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the conviction unsustainable. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's omission was fatal to the conviction. The Court ruled that the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a mere formality but a mandatory legal obligation. The trial court must confront the accused with all incriminating evidence that could influence the court's decision to ensure compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to re-examine the appellant under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding all incriminating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory requirement for a valid conviction?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to confront an accused with specific incriminating evidence during Section 342 examination constitute material prejudice?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to question an accused on material incriminating circumstances under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 931 · Federal Shariat Court · 2006-03-31
  dying declarationZina-bil-Jabrmurdersubstantive evidencecorroborationhandwriting expertappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a sixteen-year-old girl, Mst. Asma Rafique, and for attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr. The prosecution alleged that the appellant trespassed into the victim's home, attempted to sexually assault her, and, upon her resistance, set her on fire, causing fatal burns. The core legal questions were whether the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and reliable, and whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the written statement of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of the victim's sister, constituted a valid dying declaration. The court rejected the appellant's defense of suicide and alleged enmity, noting the appellant's abscondence and lack of evidence for his claims. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, establishing that a dying declaration, once proven authentic, serves as substantive evidence sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration, particularly when supported by surrounding circumstances and medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a dying declaration?
  • Does a dying declaration require independent corroboration to be admissible as substantive evidence?
  • Is a written statement made by a victim before death admissible as a dying declaration if it is not signed by the maker?
  • Does the failure of an accused to enter the witness-box under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the court's assessment of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs State2006 PLJ FSC 283 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Dost vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 80 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-06
  diyatpayment of diyatinstalmentsbail after sentencevalue of silverfederal shariat court
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed by the convict seeking fixation of the amount of Diyat, permission to pay the same in instalments, and grant of bail after having undergone his substantive sentence of imprisonment. The core legal question involved the determination of the appropriate value of Diyat based on the date of occurrence and the court's power to allow payment in instalments along with post-sentence bail. The Federal Shariat Court held that the amount of Diyat must be fixed in accordance with the value declared by the Federal Government for the financial year in which the occurrence took place, and that under the relevant statutory provisions, Diyat may be made payable in instalments spread over a period of three years with the provision for release on bail upon furnishing adequate security. The key principle laid down is that the quantum of Diyat is determined by the value of silver notified by the Federal Government for the year of the incident, subject to the financial circumstances of the parties, and can be paid in instalments within a maximum period of three years coupled with bail during that period.

  Questions settled

  • How is the value of Diyat determined when the occurrence took place in a previous financial year?
  • Can the payment of Diyat be made in instalments spread over a period of time?
  • Under what conditions can a convict be released on bail pending the payment of Diyat?
  • What is the minimum value of Diyat required to be fixed by the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and another vs The State and 19 otherss2006 P Cr. L J 1035 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-16
  zina-bil-jabrabductionrestitution of conjugal rightshudood ordinancecriminal appealsentence reductionacquittalenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two connected criminal appeals challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 10(3) and Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting other co-accused. The core legal questions involve the veracity of abduction charges amidst deep-rooted enmity between the parties and the validity of a marriage defense against a charge of Zina-bil-Jabr where a family court had already found against the existence of a valid marriage. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove abduction due to prior enmity and unreliable testimony, setting aside the convictions under Section 11 of the Ordinance and Section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, upholding the conviction under Section 10(3) of the Ordinance given the family court finding, the court reduced the sentence from twenty-five years to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of other respondents. The key principle laid down is that while prior enmity and unverified abduction claims warrant acquittal on abduction and related charges, a conviction for Zina under the Hudood Ordinance may be sustained where a valid marriage is not established, though sentence lengths can be mitigated based on background history and context.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained when testimonies regarding abduction are found to be untrustworthy due to prior enmity?
  • Does a finding by a Family Court denying a valid marriage in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights support a conviction for Zina under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can appellate courts reduce a sentence of rigorous imprisonment under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 keeping in view the background and history of enmity between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad and others vs State and others2006 PLJ FSC 4 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-09-22
  Zinaabductionbenefit of doubtrestitution of conjugal rightsNikahmedical evidenceHudood Ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for abduction and Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the charges of abduction and Zina beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant's plea of a valid marriage (Nikah) was sustainable, particularly given a dismissed suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the primary appellant for Zina and abduction, as corroborated by the victim's consistent testimony, medical evidence, chemical reports, and the finality of the family court judgment negating the alleged marriage. However, the co-accused providing shelter was given the benefit of the doubt due to a lack of criminal intent and cultural context. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the principal appellant with a modification to the fine, and acquitted the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree of a Family Court dismissing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights conclusively disproves the plea of a valid marriage in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained based on consistent victim testimony and positive medical reports?
  • Is a person who provides shelter to an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proven criminal intent or active participation in an abduction?
  • Whether the uncorroborated plea of a valid Nikah overrides consistent prosecution evidence in a charge of Zina.
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 372 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-27
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionrape and murderinquest reportretracted confessionQatl-i-AmdZina-bil-Jabr
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, receiving a death sentence and ten years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—comprising the recovery of a personal item (a locket) at the crime scene, extra-judicial confession, and witness testimony—was sufficient to sustain the conviction in the absence of eye-witnesses. The Court held that the conviction was sound, ruling that while extra-judicial confessions require strict scrutiny, they are reliable when corroborated by independent evidence, such as medical reports and physical recoveries. The principle laid down is that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain of events linking the accused to the crime, is sufficient for conviction, and that the omission of an item from an inquest report's specific column does not invalidate the recovery if otherwise proven credible by the investigating officer's testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an item from column 23 of an inquest report invalidate the recovery of that item as evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction if it is supported by independent corroborative evidence?
  • Can a witness be classified as a 'stock witness' solely based on having appeared in previous cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs State and another2006 PLJ FSC 49 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 1516 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-17
  HarabahHudood LawsTazkiya-tul-ShahoodQatl-e-Amdconfession of co-accusedcircumstantial evidencealteration of convictionSection 302 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, convicting three appellants under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and sentencing them to death for the armed snatching of a taxi and the murder of its driver. During pendency, two co-appellants absconded, leaving the appeal to proceed solely for appellant Abdul Ghafoor. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including blood-stained recoveries, possession of the stolen taxi and victim's documents, and extra-judicial/confessional statements of co-accused recorded by a Magistrate. The core legal questions pertained to whether a conviction for Harabah under Hudood laws could stand without Tazkiya-tul-Shahood or a plea of guilt before the trial Court, and whether co-accused confessions and circumstantial evidence could sustain a conviction. The Federal Shariat Court held that in the absence of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood or a direct plea of guilt before the trial Court under Section 7, a sentence under Hudood laws is unsustainable. However, based on the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and co-accused confessions admissible as circumstantial evidence under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the Court altered the conviction to Section 302(b) read with Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding death for murder and ten years' imprisonment for robbery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained without Tazkiya-tul-Shahood or a plea of guilt before the trial court?
  • Whether the judicial confession of a co-accused recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used as circumstantial evidence against another accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction under Hudood laws be altered to a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the statutory requirements for Hadd are not satisfied but Tazir proof exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Dost vs State2006 PLJ FSC 87 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-06
  Diyatpayment of Diyatvaluation of Diyatpost-conviction bailinstallment paymentPakistan Penal Codecriminal sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, having served his substantive sentence of imprisonment for a conviction involving Diyat, filed an application seeking the fixation of the Diyat amount, permission to pay it in installments, and release on bail. The core legal questions concerned the appropriate date for determining the value of Diyat and the court's authority to allow installment payments and grant bail pending such payment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the value of Diyat must be determined based on the value declared by the Federal Government at the time of the occurrence of the offense. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the law, Diyat may be paid in installments over a period of three years, and a convict may be released on bail upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount. The Court fixed the Diyat amount based on the relevant S.R.O. from the year of the occurrence and granted the applicant bail subject to furnishing the required surety and an undertaking to pay the installments. This judgment clarifies the temporal application of Diyat valuation and the procedural mechanisms for its satisfaction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the value of Diyat determined at the time of the occurrence or the time of the judgment?
  • Can a convict be released on bail pending the payment of Diyat?
  • Does the law permit the payment of Diyat in installments?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Mushtaq and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 415 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-26
  Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancecriminal appealconviction on assumptionslack of medical evidenceappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, convicting the appellants, Aamir Mushtaq and Mumtaz Bibi, under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the charge of Zina beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of medical evidence and trustworthy eyewitness testimony. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court based its findings on mere assumptions and conjectures, the FIR and primary witnesses contained no allegations of Zina, and the sole supporting witness was an unreliable accomplice. The key principle laid down is that a conviction for Zina cannot be sustained on the basis of weak, contradictory evidence, superficial examination of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and judicial assumptions without concrete proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained solely on assumptions and conjectures in the absence of medical evidence?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness who admits to being arrested in the same case is sufficient to prove the charge of Zina?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR without any initial allegation of Zina affect the credibility of a subsequent charge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Mushtaq and another vs State2006 PLJ FSC 180 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-26
  zinacriminal appealconvictionevidenceHudood lawsacquittalappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants, Aamir Mushtaq and Mumtaz Bibi, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants were initially charged with enticement, but were ultimately convicted for zina despite a lack of medical evidence and credible eyewitness testimony. The Federal Shariat Court examined the prosecution's evidence, noting that the FIR contained no allegation of zina, and the testimony of the sole witness claiming to have seen the act was unreliable, particularly as he admitted to being arrested in connection with the same case. The Court found that the trial judge relied on assumptions and conjectures rather than evidence, and failed to properly record the statements of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for zina be sustained solely on assumptions and conjectures without medical or credible eyewitness evidence?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to meticulously analyze evidence and record statements of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 sustainable when the FIR and prosecution witnesses fail to allege the commission of zina?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziman Abbas and 4 others vs The State2005 P C R L J 925 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ziman Abbas and 4 others vs State2005 PLJ FSC 97 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Zia Ullah alias Jajj vs The State2005 SCMR 1461 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-04-14
  leave to appealHaraabahreappraisal of evidencetest identification paraderecovery of crime weaponF.I.R. interpolationsentence of death
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal seeking review of the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner for offences involving Haraabah and sentencing him to death, while his co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence. The core legal questions pertained to whether the F.I.R. was tainted by post-investigation interpolation, whether the eye-witnesses were natural and reliable despite improvements and discrepancies, whether the recovery of the crime pistol without independent witnesses was valid, and whether the test identification parade was legally defective due to unexplained delay and failure to state the specific roles of the accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the prosecution evidence in light of the petitioner's contentions and the established principles for evidence appraisal in criminal cases. The key principle reaffirmed is that leave to appeal may be granted where criminal evidence requires reappraisal to prevent potential miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal may be granted to reappraise prosecution evidence in a criminal case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in holding a test identification parade affect its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction and death sentence be sustained where a co-accused is acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad and another vs The State2005 SCMR 277 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-09-20
  extra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencepolice custodymurdercriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld the conviction and death sentence of Wazir Muhammad and the life imprisonment of Muhammad Ameer under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody, the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants, holding that an extra-judicial confession made in police custody is inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that extra-judicial confessions are a weak type of evidence requiring strong corroboration, and that circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis than guilt. The Court laid down that convictions based on circumstantial or extra-judicial evidence cannot be sustained unless all incriminating links are fully proven without gaps.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession made in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession?
  • What are the foundational principles for relying on circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction?
  • Whether the recovery of a registration book alone is sufficient to award capital punishment in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ullah Habib and 2 others vs The State and another2005 P C R L J 899 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-02-15
  quashment of FIRcognizable offenceOffence of Zinaabuse of processHudood Ordinancecriminal proceedingsinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the quashment of an FIR registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Foreigners Act, 1946. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the FIR, which merely stated the accused were found in a semi-naked condition during a police raid, disclosed a cognizable offence sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution. The Court held that the FIR must be quashed, finding that the prosecution's allegations, even if accepted as true, failed to constitute any cognizable offence under the relevant laws. The Court observed that mere presence in a semi-naked state, without evidence of Zina or prostitution, does not satisfy the legal requirements for criminal liability. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings must be quashed when the allegations at face value do not disclose a cognizable offence, or when continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that Zina requires proof of penetration, and mere immoral conduct or intention to commit a crime is not punishable under the Hudood laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of individuals in a semi-naked condition constitute a cognizable offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court exercise its inherent powers to quash an FIR at the pre-trial stage?
  • Is penetration a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted as true, do not disclose a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ullah Habib and 2 others vs State and another2005 PLJ FSC 107 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-02-15
  quashment of FIRcognizable offenceOffence of Zinaabuse of processpre-trial quashmentinherent powers of High CourtForeigners Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Foreigners Act, 1946, following a police raid on a private residence where the petitioners were found in a semi-naked condition. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted as true, disclosed a cognizable offence justifying criminal proceedings. The Court held that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence, as the mere presence of individuals in a semi-naked state, absent evidence of penetration or prostitution, does not constitute the offence of Zina. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue when they are based on allegations that fail to establish criminal liability, as this would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings may be quashed at the pre-trial stage if the FIR fails to disclose a cognizable offence, thereby preventing the wastage of judicial time and abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of individuals in a semi-naked condition in a private house constitute the offence of Zina?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the FIR fails to disclose a cognizable offence?
  • At what stage can a court exercise its inherent powers to quash an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Tordi Khan vs The State2005 P C R L J 1970 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-19
  additional evidencepolice diariesspecial diariesinvestigation reportadmissibility of evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to bring additional evidence—specifically daily progress reports submitted by a police witness—onto the judicial record. The core legal question was whether police progress reports, which were not formally admitted during trial, could be introduced as evidence or otherwise utilized by the Court. The Court held that the application was misconceived and dismissed it. The ratio of the decision is that police progress reports, often characterized as special diaries, cannot be termed as 'evidence' under Article 2(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, due to the explicit bar contained in Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established the principle that while a Criminal Court may summon and peruse police diaries to aid in an inquiry or trial for the limited purpose of understanding the investigation's trajectory or clarifying obscurities, such diaries cannot be used as substantive evidence to test the veracity of witness statements or form the basis of a judicial finding.

  Questions settled

  • Can police progress reports be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • For what limited purpose may a Criminal Court use police diaries during an inquiry or trial?
  • Does the bar in Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent a court from perusing police diaries for the purpose of aiding an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Tordi Khan vs State2005 PLJ FSC 158 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-09-19
  additional evidencepolice diariesspecial diariescriminal procedureqanun-e-shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application filed under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to bring additional evidence on record, specifically daily progress reports or police diaries of the investigation. The core legal question was whether police diaries or progress reports can be termed as 'evidence' under Article 2(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and brought on the judicial record in view of the bar contained in Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the application, holding that police diaries and progress reports cannot be treated as substantive evidence or placed on the judicial file, though the court may peruse them to aid in an inquiry or trial or to clear up obscurities. The key principle laid down is that police diaries are inadmissible as evidence and cannot be used to test the correctness of witness statements on oath, but may be looked into by the court for its moral satisfaction or to understand the line of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily progress reports or police diaries can be termed as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can police diaries be brought on the judicial file as substantive evidence in view of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • For what limited purposes can a court use police diaries during an inquiry or trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Mehfooz Hussain and 3 others2005 P C R L J 1747 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-05-19
  condonation of delaylimitation periodFederal Shariat Court Procedure Rulesappeal against acquittalsufficient causeOffence of Zinastatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the limitation period for filing such an appeal is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, and whether the Court has the power to condone delay given the specific provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, prevail over the general law of limitation, and that the Court possesses the inherent power to extend the limitation period for sufficient cause under the proviso to Rule 18(1)(A) of said Rules, rendering arguments regarding the Limitation Act, 1908, inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant had demonstrated sufficient cause, as he was abroad when the judgment was passed and had been diligently pursuing the matter, including seeking a certified copy of the judgment which had not yet been supplied.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, displace the general law of limitation regarding appeals?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the power to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal?
  • Is the limitation period for filing an appeal against acquittal governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Mehfooz Hussain & 3 others2005 PLJ FSC 131 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-05-19
  condonation of delayappeal against acquittallimitation periodFederal Shariat Court Procedure Rulessufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the acquittal of respondents from charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under the law of limitation and the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, given that the appellant was abroad and faced difficulties in obtaining certified copies of the judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the general law of limitation stands excluded by the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, which prescribe a sixty-day limitation period for filing appeals and empower the court to extend the period for sufficient cause. The court found that the appellant was diligently pursuing the matter while abroad and upon return to Pakistan, thus establishing sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, laying down that the specific rules framed under the Constitution govern limitation in this court, displacing general statutory limitations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the general law of limitation stand excluded in proceedings before the Federal Shariat Court in view of its specific procedure rules?
  • Can the Federal Shariat Court extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal for sufficient cause under its procedure rules?
  • Does Section 29(2)(a) of the Limitation Act bar the extension of time where special rules provide an extension mechanism?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shaira and 2 others vs The State2005 P C R L J 384 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shaira and 2 others vs State2005 PLJ FSC 154 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Shehzad Ahmad alias Mithu and another vs The State2005 P C R L J 1316 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-27
  compromiseDiyatcompensationqatl-e-amdPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise, and the legal heirs of the deceased forgave the appellants in the name of Allah and acknowledged the deposit of the Diyat amount. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties and the payment of Diyat absolves the convicts from paying compensation under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that payment of compensation under section 544-A is mandatory and is in addition to punishments and sentences, including Diyat which is classified as a punishment under section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Therefore, a compromise and payment of Diyat do not waive the statutory obligation to pay compensation, although the court may adjust the amount and permit payment in instalments based on financial hardship.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of Diyat absolve a convict from paying compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the award of compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory upon conviction?
  • Can an appellate court reduce the amount of compensation and allow its payment in instalments based on the poverty of the convicts?
  • Does a valid compromise among the legal heirs warrant the setting aside of a conviction and sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Ahmad alias Mithu & another- vs State2005 PLJ FSC 168 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-27
  compromiseDiyatcompensationsection 544-A Cr.P.C.acquittalpunishmentsfederal shariat court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a valid compromise, and the legal heirs of the deceased forgave the appellants in the name of Allah and acknowledged receipt of the Diyat amount. The core legal question was whether the payment of Diyat absolves a convict from the mandatory requirement of paying compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether an appellate court can acquit the accused upon a lawful compromise while adjusting the compensation terms. The Federal Shariat Court held that Diyat is a distinct punishment under Section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than a substitute for compensation, and thus the mandatory nature of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remains intact despite a compromise and payment of Diyat. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, set aside the conviction for murder, acquitted the appellants, but maintained the obligation to pay compensation while reducing the amount and granting payment in installments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payment of Diyat absolves a convict from the requirement of paying compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the award of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory upon conviction?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction for qatl-e-amd based on a genuine compromise between the legal heirs and the accused?
  • Does the payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in addition to other punishments attract the doctrine of double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ashraf and another vs The State2005 P C R L J 1933 · Federal Shariat Court
  Zina-bil-JabrabetmentNikah defenseconviction appealHudood Ordinancecriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of two appellants for the offences of Zina and abetment. The core legal question was whether the appellants' defense of a valid Nikah (marriage) could successfully negate the charge of Zina, given the timeline of the alleged marriage relative to the registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The Court held that the conviction was sound, rejecting the appellants' defense because the alleged Nikah was performed after the F.I.R. had already been lodged, thereby proving the offence was committed without a valid marital relationship. The Court affirmed the conviction for Zina and abetment but set aside the sentence of fine, as the relevant statute did not provide for such a penalty. The principle laid down is that a plea of valid marriage cannot be sustained as a defense to a charge of Zina when the documentary evidence establishes that the marriage was contracted subsequent to the initiation of criminal proceedings for abduction and Zina.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of valid Nikah serve as a defense to a charge of Zina if the marriage was contracted after the registration of the F.I.R.?
  • Is a fine a legally permissible sentence under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the performance of a Nikah after the filing of an F.I.R. for abduction and Zina negate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed alias. Phuloo vs The State2005 P C R L J 81 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-09-23
  sodomycriminal appealreduction of sentencemedical evidenceunnatural offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable and whether the sentence of fourteen years was lawful under the statute. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the prosecution evidence fully established the guilt of the appellant and inspired confidence, Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes a maximum term of ten years when imprisonment for life is not awarded, making the sentence of fourteen years excessive. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal on merits regarding the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment from fourteen years to ten years while maintaining the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a sentence of imprisonment under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot exceed ten years unless imprisonment for life is awarded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment is lawful under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when imprisonment for life is not awarded?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the legal limits of punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed alias Phuloo vs State2005 PLJ FSC 14 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-09-23
  sodomycriminal appealsentence reductionstatutory maximum sentenceconvictionPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad, for the offence of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerned the legality of the sentence imposed, specifically whether it exceeded the statutory maximum prescribed by law. Upon review, the Federal Shariat Court found the prosecution evidence, including medical testimony and eyewitness accounts, to be confidence-inspiring and sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes a maximum term of ten years for imprisonment other than life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court held that the trial court's sentence of fourteen years was legally impermissible. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sentence of fourteen years for an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exceed the statutory limit?
  • What is the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, excluding life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad Alias Shikha vs The StateK.L.R. 2005 Criminal Cases 58 · Federal Shariat Court
  bail pending appealsuspension of sentencebailable offence after convictionProhibition Orderappellate discretionillegal sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal filed by the applicant, who was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for possessing intoxicant liquor. The core legal question was whether a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as of right upon filing an appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the appellate court's power under Section 426 is controlled by sections relating to bailable offences. The Federal Shariat Court held that bail after conviction cannot be claimed as of right, even for bailable offences, because the presumption of innocence is dislodged upon conviction. The appellate court's discretion under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is independent and not fettered by sections 496, 497, or 498. However, considering that the maximum sentence prescribed under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possession is two years—making the trial court's three-year sentence legally unsustainable—coupled with the short sentence and unlikely early hearing of the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person convicted of a bailable offence entitled to bail as of right upon filing an appeal?
  • Does the power of the appellate court to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 get controlled or suppressed by the provisions of sections 496 and 497?
  • Does an order rejecting an appellant's bail application under Section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require supporting reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad alias Shika vs The State2005 P C R L J 193 · Federal Shariat Court
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealbailable offencediscretionary powerconvict statusProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This application concerns a request for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal by a convict sentenced to three years' imprisonment under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant contended that since the offence is bailable and the sentence is short, bail should be granted as a matter of right. The Court rejected the argument that bail is a right for bailable offences post-conviction, clarifying that the presumption of innocence is dislodged upon conviction. The Court held that the power to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and not fettered by the provisions regarding bail for accused persons (Sections 496 and 497). The Court emphasized that Appellate Courts must independently apply their minds to the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the Court granted the bail application on the merits, noting that the trial court imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum prescribed by the relevant law and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person convicted of a bailable offence entitled to bail as of right pending the disposal of their appeal?
  • Does the power of an Appellate Court to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 depend on whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable?
  • Is the discretion of the Appellate Court under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 controlled by the provisions of Sections 496 and 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad alias Shika vs State2005 PLJ FSC 65 · Federal Shariat Court
  post-conviction bailsuspension of sentencebailable offenceappellate discretionprohibition orderstatutory interpretationright to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal filed by the applicant, who was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question addressed is whether a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as of right pending appeal, and how the appellate court's discretion under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operates in relation to Sections 496 and 497. The court held that bail after conviction cannot be claimed as of right, even for bailable offences, because the presumption of innocence is dislodged upon conviction and the appellate court's power under Section 426 Cr.P.C. is a matter of judicial discretion not fettered by provisions governing pre-trial bail. The key principle laid down is that while post-conviction bail is discretionary and requires an independent assessment of the case, a convict's status changes upon conviction, yet courts may exercise leniency where sentences are short, appeals are unlikely to be heard soon, or patent errors appear in the trial judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as of right pending appeal?
  • Does the power of the appellate court to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 get controlled by the provisions governing pre-trial bail?
  • What is the effect of conviction on the presumption of innocence and the status of an accused person?
  • Must an appellate court record reasons when rejecting an application for bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs State2005 PLJ FSC 123 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-10-27
  lurking house-trespasshouse-breaking by nightburden of proofspecial pleacriminal appealdefence evidenceintent to commit offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was found in the complainant's house at night. The core legal question was whether the appellant's presence in the house constituted lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night with the intent to commit an offence, or if the appellant's defence—that he was abducted and confined by the complainant—was credible. The Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate his special plea of abduction, as his testimony was inconsistent with the evidence and the complainant's cross-examination. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the appellant entered the house with the specific intent to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment (as the zina charge was not established), the Court found Section 457 inapplicable. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 456 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that when an accused raises a specific defence plea, the burden shifts to the accused to substantiate that plea; failure to do so, combined with admitted presence at the scene, justifies conviction for the lesser offence of lurking house-trespass.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a special plea of abduction, when presence at the scene is admitted, justify a conviction for lurking house-trespass?
  • Is a conviction under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove the intent to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused to substantiate a specific defence plea?
  • Can a conviction be altered from Section 457 to Section 456 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the element of intent is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser and 4 others vs The State2005 P C R L J 1027 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-03-01
  zina-bil-jabrabductionenticementnikah pleaappellate reviewbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting multiple appellants for abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the victim's testimony regarding forcible abduction, non-consensual sexual intercourse, and a disputed marriage plea raised by the primary appellant. Upon examining the evidence, the Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove forcible abduction and participation beyond reasonable doubt against four co-accused, resulting in their acquittal. However, regarding the principal appellant, the court found that the evidence established enticement, lack of valid free-will consent to marriage, and non-consensual sexual intercourse. Consequently, his conviction under section 10(3) was maintained with a reduced sentence, his conviction under section 11 was altered to section 16, and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended. The key principle laid down is that where forcible abduction is disbelieved but enticement and lack of free consent to a subsequent marriage are established, conviction under section 16 and section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be altered to section 16 when the element of forcible abduction is not proved but enticement is established?
  • Does a plea of valid marriage by an accused charged with Zina-bil-Jabr exonerate him when the victim denies consent and proves she escaped from custody?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of a victim regarding sexual assault be accepted when supported by attending circumstances and the absence of a motive for false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim and others vs The State and others2005 P C R L J 1329 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-08-02
  HarabaHudood Ordinancestolen propertyocular evidencecriminal appealrecoverydishonest retention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the theft of a buffalo. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of Haraba (theft) based on the ocular evidence provided and the circumstances of the recovery. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, noting significant improvements in testimony and the physical impossibility of the stolen, pregnant buffalo being driven away at speed as alleged. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under the Hudood Ordinance for all appellants. While acquitting two appellants due to lack of evidence, the Court upheld the conviction of one appellant for the lesser offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the credible recovery of the stolen animal from his possession. The key principle laid down is that where the primary charge of Haraba fails due to unreliable ocular testimony and physical improbabilities, the court may still convict for a lesser offence if the recovery of stolen property is independently proven by credible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained when the ocular evidence is contradictory and physically improbable?
  • Is an accused liable for the offence of Haraba if the stolen property was recovered from his possession but the primary evidence of the theft is unreliable?
  • Can a court convert a conviction from a Hudood offence to an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the same set of facts?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property from an accused, in the absence of proof of the actual theft, justify a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Imtiaz and another vs The State2005 P C R L J 721 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-01-13
  Zina-bil-Jabrconstructive liabilityalteration of chargecriminal appealfair trialmajor vs minor offenceHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which convicted the appellants under Section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced them to death. The core legal question was whether the appellants, initially charged under Section 10(3) of the Ordinance, could be legally convicted under Section 10(4) without a formal alteration of the charge, considering that Section 10(4) constitutes a graver offence involving constructive liability and a harsher penalty. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction could not be sustained because the appellants were not properly charged with the major offence. The Court established the principle that while an accused charged with a graver offence may be convicted of a minor offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the reverse is impermissible. A conviction for a major offence requires a specific charge to ensure the accused is aware of the case they must answer. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial with proper charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted of a major offence when they were only charged with a minor offence?
  • Does the failure to alter a charge from a minor to a major offence invalidate a conviction?
  • Is Section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, considered a graver offence than Section 10(3)?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Masih vs The State2005 P Cr. L J 1232 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-04-18
  police confessioncustodial statementcircumstantial evidencerecovery of weaponcorroboratory evidenceburden of proofbenefit of doubtmurder
  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 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of an 8-year-old boy. The core legal questions involve the admissibility of police confessions made while in custody under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the extent of admissibility under Article 40 for facts discovered, and whether a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial or corroboratory evidence like weapon recovery without substantive direct evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that police confessions without resulting discoveries are inadmissible, and that corroboratory evidence such as weapon recovery—unsupported by serological reports or direct substantive evidence—is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on corroboratory or circumstantial evidence in the absence of substantive direct evidence, and that the benefit of any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by an accused to a police officer while in custody admissible in evidence?
  • What portion of a custodial statement leading to a recovery is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of corroboratory evidence like the recovery of a weapon in the absence of substantive direct evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the Serologist and Chemical Examiner reports are not produced at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs State2005 PLJ FSC 39 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad alias Nasro vs State2005 PLJ FSC 16 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-04-22Read full judgment →
• Nadeem vs The State2005 P C R L J 1010 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →