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.

• Muneer Ahmed and 3 others vs The State and another2001 P Cr. L J 1253 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-03-24
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealZina Ordinanceidentification of accuseddelay in complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by four appellants convicted under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, who were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, fifteen stripes, and a fine. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the State counsel conceded to the suspension of the sentence, noting significant evidentiary weaknesses. Specifically, the complaint was filed by the victim's brother six months after the alleged incident, and the victim herself, in her statement during the inquiry, failed to identify the appellants, claiming she was waylaid by unidentified persons. Given the substantial delay in filing the complaint, the victim's inability to identify the accused, and the allegations of enmity, the Court held that a prima facie case for suspension of sentence was established. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and directed the release of the appellants on bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence can be suspended pending appeal when the victim fails to identify the accused?
  • Does a significant delay in filing a private complaint constitute grounds for suspension of sentence?
  • Is the concession of the State counsel regarding the suspension of sentence a relevant factor for the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 804 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-10-18
  criminal appealtheftcriminal breach of trustburden of proofcircumstantial evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 380 and 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the theft of a large sum of money from his office. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that the initial police investigation identified an absconding suspect and the complainant only implicated the appellant after facing her own disciplinary proceedings. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to provide any credible ocular or circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant to the offense. The trial court’s reliance on the complainant’s testimony was deemed erroneous, as it was based on suspicion and vengeance rather than established facts. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or uncorroborated, belated testimony, particularly when the investigative findings contradict the prosecution's theory and point toward another individual.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a complainant's testimony when the investigation has exonerated the accused?
  • Is a conviction valid if the prosecution fails to provide ocular or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Does the failure of an investigation to recover stolen property from an accused weaken the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid and 6 others vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 1243 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-04-03
  prostitution denbrothelHudood lawssearch warrantsurmises and conjecturespolice raidbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, convicting the appellants under section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the police raided a rented house run as a prostitution den, arrested several accused persons inside, and apprehended others fleeing in a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of running a brothel and buying, hiring, or obtaining possession of persons for prostitution under section 14, and whether a conviction could be sustained solely on police testimony and unverified spy information without corroborative public witnesses or incriminating physical evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to produce any legal evidence proving the house was a brothel or that the accused managed it or possessed persons for prostitution, rendering the statutory presumption inapplicable. The Court laid down that convictions cannot be based on police suspicion, surmises, or uncorroborated secret information, and that failure to associate public witnesses or comply with search requirements in the absence of independent incriminating evidence vitiates the conviction. Consequently, the appeals were accepted and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained solely on unverified police spy information without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does the statutory presumption under the explanation to section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply without initial proof that the accused kept or managed a brothel?
  • Can a police officer conduct a house search for alleged prostitution without a search warrant and without associating public witnesses from the locality?
  • Whether the absence of incriminating physical evidence such as marked money, semen stains, or recovered objects is fatal to a prosecution case alleging the running of a prostitution den?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iftikhar and 3 others vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 1234 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-02-21
  attempted zinaabductioncriminal appealsentence reductioncircumstantial evidencecredibility of witnesswhipping sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge for offenses including attempted Zina, abduction, and other related crimes. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the complainant and supporting circumstantial evidence, and whether the awarded sentences were excessive. The court held that the complainant's testimony, corroborated by witnesses who observed her in a distressed state immediately after the incident, was credible and sufficient to establish the prosecution's case. The court rejected the defense's claims of false implication due to political or local enmity, noting a lack of supporting evidence. Consequently, the court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentences, finding them disproportionate to the circumstances, and set aside the sentence of whipping as no longer legally required. The key principle established is that while delay in reporting a crime involving family honour is understandable and does not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case, the court retains the authority to modify sentences to ensure proportionality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in reporting a crime involving family honour necessarily undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a court reduce sentences upon appeal if the conviction is maintained?
  • Is the sentence of whipping legally required for offenses under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State2001 YLR 1657 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-09-14
  zinaabductionbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportdissolution of marriagenon-appealing co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 10(2) and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had abducted the co-accused and committed Zina with her. The Federal Shariat Court examined the evidence, noting the lack of credible eyewitness testimony regarding the commission of Zina, the negative report from the Chemical Examiner regarding vaginal swabs, and the uncorroborated nature of the solitary witness's statement regarding the alleged abduction. Furthermore, documentary evidence produced by the defence—including prior judicial proceedings, a suit for dissolution of marriage, and applications concerning the co-accused staying at Dar-ul-Aman—rendered the prosecution's version highly improbable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and extended the benefit of acquittal to the non-appealing co-accused as well.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance can be sustained in the absence of credible eyewitness accounts and corroborative medical evidence?
  • Can the benefit of an acquittal in a criminal appeal be extended to a co-accused who did not file an appeal against their conviction?
  • Does uncorroborated solitary testimony regarding abduction suffice to maintain a conviction under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 1210 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-02-07
  Zina-bil-Jabrabductionvalidity of Nikahcriminal appealsentence reductionwhipping punishmentHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge for offences related to abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The appellants were convicted under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations that they forcibly abducted the victim and subjected her to sexual intercourse. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the appellant's defence that he had entered into a valid Nikah with the victim. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, comprising the victim's testimony, the complainant's account, and corroborating medical and chemical reports, was consistent and reliable. Conversely, the Court rejected the appellant's defence of a valid marriage, noting that previous family court proceedings had declared the Nikahnama fake. The Court affirmed the convictions but reduced the sentence for the principal offender, finding the original term excessive. It also remitted the punishment of whipping, citing the Abolishment of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. The principle established is that a failed claim of marriage in civil proceedings renders a defence of lawful sexual relations in criminal proceedings invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claim of valid marriage serve as a defence to a charge of Zina-bil-Jabr if the marriage has been declared fake by a family court?
  • Does the testimony of a victim of abduction and Zina require corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Is the punishment of whipping legally enforceable following the enactment of the Abolishment of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 412 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-10-04
  Qatl-e-Amdextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceminor offenderQisasDiyatTazirdeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an eight-year-old girl. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, recovery of incriminating articles, and last-seen evidence. The appellant contended that the confession was unreliable and the circumstantial evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court held that while an extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, it can form the basis of conviction if found voluntary and true, especially when corroborated by subsequent discoveries and medical evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction, reiterating that circumstantial evidence, when sufficient and of high quality, is legally adequate for conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the appellant was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. Consequently, pursuant to Sections 306 and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the appellant was not liable to Qisas. The death sentence was commuted to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment, with a direction to determine the payment of Diyat.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction if it is retracted?
  • Does a minor offender (under eighteen) qualify for Qisas in a case of Qatl-e-Amd?
  • What is the appropriate punishment for a minor who commits Qatl-e-Amd but possesses sufficient maturity to realize the consequences of their act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam alias Shin vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 86 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-05
  robberydisclosure statementpolice custodyco-accused confessionsubstantive evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question was whether an uncorroborated disclosure statement made by a co-accused in police custody, without any consequential discovery or substantive direct evidence, could form the sole basis for the appellant's conviction. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that a statement made in police custody is inadmissible unless a fact is discovered in consequence thereof pursuant to Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that a disclosure or confession by a co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot solely sustain a conviction without independent corroboration. The court laid down the principle that in the absence of substantive or direct evidence connecting an accused to the crime, no conviction can be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can an uncorroborated disclosure made by a co-accused in police custody form the sole basis for conviction?
  • Is a disclosure statement considered a substantive piece of evidence in criminal trials?
  • When is information received from an accused person in police custody admissible under the law of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 72 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-06-07
  murderdacoitycrime weaponnon-production of weaponexamination of accusedsection 342 Cr.P.C.section 540 Cr.P.C.remand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death as Qisas for murder committed during a dacoity. The core legal questions involved whether the non-production of the crime weapon at trial and the failure to question the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding its recovery vitiated the conviction, and whether the appellate court could remand the matter for rectifying such procedural defects. The Federal Shariat Court held that when a weapon's recovery is used as a major incriminating circumstance, it must be formally produced and proved at trial, and the accused must be specifically questioned regarding it under section 342, Cr.P.C.; failure to do so causes material prejudice. The court laid down the principle that the power under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obligatory when evidence is essential for a just decision, and accordingly set aside the conviction and remanded the case for retrial and re-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production and non-exhibition of a crime weapon at trial renders its alleged recovery inadmissible as an incriminating piece of evidence?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to specifically question an accused person under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the recovery of a weapon used to convict him?
  • Does the power of the court under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon or recall a material witness become obligatory when such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Whether the omission to question an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning vital incriminating circumstances causes material prejudice vitiating the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Shaheen vs Said Rasool and 3 others2001 P Cr. L J 244 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-09-27
  HudoodZina-bil-Jabrcomplaint vs challanfactum of Nikahremandprocedural irregularitystay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a Hudood case involving charges of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in simultaneously proceeding with both a private complaint and a police challan case, and whether it failed to address the disputed factum of Nikah by not staying proceedings for a civil court determination. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to follow established precedents regarding the simultaneous handling of complaint and challan cases and the necessity of resolving marital disputes in civil courts. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The key principles laid down are that a criminal court must stay proceedings when a bona fide plea of Nikah is raised, directing parties to seek adjudication from a civil court of exclusive jurisdiction, and that complaint and challan cases cannot be proceeded with simultaneously, with the complaint case taking precedence and police witnesses being examined as court witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court simultaneously proceed with both a private complaint and a police challan case in a Hudood matter?
  • What is the duty of a criminal court when a bona fide plea of Nikah is raised by the accused?
  • Should a criminal court stay proceedings to allow parties to resolve a dispute regarding the validity of a marriage in a civil court?
  • What is the correct procedure for examining witnesses when both a complaint and a challan case exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azeeba Kausar vs Zafar Iqbal and 2 others2001 P Cr. L J 255 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-09-25
  anti-terrorism actretrospective operationjurisdictionremand of caseacquittal appealoffence of zinatrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, for charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 had jurisdiction to try an offense committed prior to the enactment of the said Act. The Federal Shariat Court held that statutes cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided, and since the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was promulgated after the date of the offense, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction ab initio, rendering its proceedings and subsequent transfer to the Sessions Court void. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for a fresh trial in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that criminal offenses must be tried by a competent court existing at the time of the commission of the offense, and procedural or substantive statutes cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act have jurisdiction to try an offense committed before the promulgation of the said Act?
  • Can a statute be given retrospective effect in criminal proceedings without explicit legislative provision?
  • What is the effect of proceedings conducted by a court that lacks initial jurisdiction over an offense?
  • Which court is competent to try an offense under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance when the Anti-Terrorism Act is inapplicable?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Zulfiqar Ahmad and 2 others2001 P Cr. L J 237 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-04-10
  acquittalabductionZinadivorcesubsequent marriagecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under section 10(2) and section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution case was that respondent No. 1 had abducted the complainant's wife and committed Zina with her. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charges of abduction and Zina against the respondents despite evidence of a valid divorce and subsequent marriage between the principal respondent and the woman. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the respondents successfully brought on record plausible evidence showing a valid divorce from the appellant and a subsequent registered marriage, rendering cohabitation lawful. The key principle laid down is that where the accused successfully establish a valid dissolution of a prior marriage and a subsequent legal marriage supported by official record, charges of Zina and abduction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained when the accused proves a valid divorce and subsequent marriage?
  • Does the production of union council records and testimony regarding a valid marriage neutralise allegations of Zina and abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Riaz-ud-Din Ahmad, J Ali Akbar vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 890 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-09-26
  retracted confessionmurderhighway robberycorroborative evidencepolice custodyvoluntary confessionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed before the Federal Shariat Court against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and robbery of a taxi driver. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a retracted confessional statement of the appellant, recorded after several days in police custody, alongside circumstantial evidence. The appellant contended that the confession was involuntary, extracted under duress, and lacked independent corroboration. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the confession was contradictory to the medical evidence, which indicated injuries from sharp and blunt weapons rather than a firearm as claimed in the confession. Furthermore, the investigation agency failed to recover the stolen taxi despite having details of its sale. The Court held that a retracted confession requires strong, independent corroboration to sustain a conviction and must be voluntary. Finding the confession doubtful and uncorroborated, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a material contradiction between a confessional statement and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death?
  • Does the failure of the magistrate to assure an accused that they will not be returned to police custody upon refusing to confess affect the voluntary nature of the confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmad vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 793 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-06-29
  sodomycriminal appealunnatural offenceconvictionsentence reductionmedical evidencechemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where the appellant was accused of committing sodomy. The appellant, along with a co-accused who was acquitted by the trial court, was charged with abducting two minors and subjecting them to sexual assault. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, despite the defense's claims of political rivalry and a counter-allegation that the victims were caught in a compromising position by the accused. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence—supported by medical reports and consistent witness testimony—credible and the defense's theory implausible. The court held that in the absence of evidence corroborating the defense's counter-narrative, and given the lack of any credible motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused, the prosecution's case remained robust. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the defense to produce evidence supporting a counter-allegation of false implication strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and fine based on the facts and circumstances of the case despite maintaining the conviction?
  • Is the testimony of victims in a sodomy case, when corroborated by medical and chemical examiner reports, sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ellahi and another vs The State and another2001 P Cr. L J 1468 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-03-20
  criminal appealdishonestly receiving stolen propertyalteration of convictionsentence reductionrecovery of stolen propertydacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of four appellants for robbery-related offences. The appellants, having initially challenged their convictions, subsequently withdrew their appeals on merits through counsel, requesting only a reduction in sentence. The core legal question before the Court was whether the evidence supported a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of dacoity) or if the offence was more appropriately classified under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (dishonestly receiving stolen property). Upon reviewing the evidence, which established that the appellants were found in possession of stolen gold bangles, the Court found the offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be proven. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but altered the legal classification from Section 412 to Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly. The judgment affirms that where evidence only establishes the possession of stolen property without proving the elements of dacoity, the conviction must be modified to the lesser offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the evidence only proves possession of stolen property?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence upon the request of the appellant's counsel when the appeal on merits is not pressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Khan and another vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 481 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-09-28
  original jurisdictioncognizance of offenceCourt of SessionCode of Criminal Procedureprocedural illegalityremanddacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session possesses the original jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence directly without the case being forwarded to it by a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a Court of Session is debarred from taking cognizance of a case as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is formally sent to it by a Magistrate, as mandated by Section 193(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that the trial was procedurally illegal because the challan was filed directly in the Sessions Court. The key principle established is that the statutory requirement for a Magistrate to scrutinize and send cases to the Sessions Court remains mandatory, except where specific legislation expressly provides otherwise. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for proper procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Court of Session take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being sent to it by a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Court of Session possess the authority to try an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, if the challan was filed directly without passing through a Magistrate?
  • Is the requirement for a Magistrate to send a case to the Court of Session for trial a mandatory procedural step?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and another vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 1675 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-05
  Zinaburden of proofillicit relationscriminal appealacquittalHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The trial court had acquitted the appellants of abduction charges but convicted them for committing Zina prior to their marriage on 23-9-1992, placing the burden on the accused to prove they had not engaged in illicit relations during the interim period. The core legal question was whether the prosecution discharged its burden of proof regarding the commission of Zina, given the absence of evidence showing the appellants lived together or engaged in intercourse before their marriage. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court erred by shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. The Court ruled that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and failed to provide evidence of cohabitation or illicit acts during the period in question. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused without initial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the burden of proof be shifted to the accused to prove innocence before the prosecution has established a prima facie case?
  • Is a conviction for Zina sustainable solely on the basis of a presumption of illicit relations during the period between the alleged abduction and the date of marriage?
  • Does the prosecution have to produce evidence of cohabitation to prove the charge of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman, Advocate vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Justice and Law Division, Islamabad2001 P Cr. L J 126 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-01-26
  Drugs Act 1976Federal Shariat Courtrepugnancy to Islamburden of proofoffences by companiescriminal liability of employeespresumption of guilt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976 before the Federal Shariat Court, on the ground that it is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question is whether holding directors, partners, and employees automatically presumed guilty for offences committed by a company, corporation, firm, or institution—unless they prove the offence was committed without their knowledge or consent—violates Islamic injunctions regarding the burden of proof and personal criminal responsibility. The court held that section 34 is not repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, reasoning that the provision serves as a safeguard and that employees can indeed be culpable if they share in or facilitate illegal acts, such as the manufacture of spurious drugs. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976 is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam regarding the burden of proof?
  • Can employees of a company, corporation, firm, or institution be held liable under section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976?
  • Does placing the onus on an accused to prove lack of knowledge or consent under section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976 violate Islamic principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 813 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-01-25
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionpolice torturecriminal appealcorroborationburden of proofhouse lurking
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, whereby the appellant Abdul Shakoor was convicted under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and reliability of a retracted judicial confession made after prolonged police custody without corroborative evidence. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that a retracted confession, particularly one tainted by potential police torture and lacking independent corroboration, cannot form the sole basis for a criminal conviction. The court laid down the principle that judicial magistrates must meticulously examine accused persons for signs of torture and verify the voluntariness of confessions, and that retracted confessions uncorroborated by independent circumstantial or material evidence are insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession alone sustain a criminal conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What are the legal duties of a judicial magistrate when recording a confession following police custody?
  • Is a confession obtained after days of police detention without inquiry into potential maltreatment considered voluntary?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Khan vs The State2001 YLR 1317 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-05-15
  murderbenefit of the doubtidentification paradeconfessional statementun-witnessed occurrencedelayed FIRcircumstantial evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on an eyewitness account by the deceased's father, a recovery of an empty shell, an identification parade, and a confessional statement. The core legal questions involved whether the presence of the alleged eyewitness was established beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary value of the identification parade, and the reliability of the retracted confessional statement. The Federal Shariat Court held that the occurrence was un-witnessed, the report was lodged after consultation and deliberation, the identification parade lacked evidentiary value due to flaws, and the confessional statement was improperly certified and uncorroborated. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an alleged eyewitness can be relied upon when medical and circumstantial evidence contradicts his presence at the scene?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the accused has already been shown to the witness at the police station?
  • Can a retracted and improperly certified confessional statement form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR coupled with discrepancies in the time of occurrence cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Ghafoor Khan Niazi and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-05
  criminal appealacquittalnarcoticsrecovery and samplingappreciation of evidencecontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State seeking the reversal of the acquittal judgment dated 5-7-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the respondents Abdul Ghafoor and Wali Saif were acquitted of charges under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following allegations of recovery of narcotic heroin and opium. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the trial court's appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery and sampling of the alleged narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court drew legitimate inferences from the record, correctly noted contradictions between oral and documentary evidence, and reached findings with valid bases. The court concluded that no valid grounds existed to interfere with the acquittal, maintaining the trial court's judgment and dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be reversed when the trial court's findings on the recovery and sampling of narcotics are based on legitimate inferences from the record?
  • Can oral testimony be relied upon when it contradicts the documentary evidence on record?
  • What is the standard for interfering with a trial court's assessment of evidence in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, N . WF.P. , Peshawar vs Gul Afzal2000 YLR 3024 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-01-20
  heroin recoveryprohibition ordercomplainant as investigatorremand of casenarcotics caseacquittal appealprocedural defects
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, of the charge under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession and sale of 25 grams of heroin. The trial court had acquitted the respondent primarily because the complainant police officer had also conducted the investigation. The core legal question was whether a police officer who acts as a complainant can also legally investigate the case, and whether investigation by the complainant vitiates the trial without proof of prejudice. The Federal Shariat Court held that, as settled by the Supreme Court, a police officer is not prohibited from being both complainant and investigator unless prejudice is caused to the accused, and courts must evaluate evidence dynamically in narcotic cases rather than relying on technicalities. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that investigation by a complainant police officer does not invalidate the trial per se unless actual prejudice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer who acts as a complainant in a criminal case also legally act as the investigating officer?
  • Does investigation of a criminal case by the complainant police officer render the trial void without proof of prejudice to the accused?
  • Should courts adopt a dynamic approach and overlook technicalities in narcotics cases?
  • What is the legal effect of an irregularity like dual roles of complainant and investigator on a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 226 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-10-11
  Zina-bil-Razaage determinationsui jurisNikahWaliradiological evidencebirth certificateOffence of Zina
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Article 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing Zina-bil-Raza. The core legal question was the determination of the female appellant's age at the time of her Nikah to ascertain whether she was sui juris and capable of contracting a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali. The court evaluated conflicting evidence, including a birth certificate (Exh.P.H.) and various medical/radiological reports. The court held that the birth certificate was the most reliable evidence, establishing the appellant was approximately 13 years old at the time of the Nikah. Finding that she had not attained puberty or the status of sui juris, and that the marriage was contracted without the consent of her Wali, the court concluded no valid Nikah existed. The conviction was upheld, though the sentence of whipping was suspended as it is no longer required by law. The judgment emphasizes that radiological age estimation is approximate and subordinate to reliable documentary evidence of birth.

  Questions settled

  • Whether radiological age estimation is sufficient to override a birth certificate in determining the age of a person?
  • Can a female who has not attained the status of sui juris contract a valid Nikah without the consent of her Wali?
  • Does the absence of the accused from the courtroom during the recording of evidence by a court-summoned witness violate the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Bahadur Shah and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 850 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-10-22
  Zina-bil-Jabrprostitutioncriminal chargefair trialremandabettorHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted for an offence under Section 14 of the Ordinance without being formally charged, and whether an alleged abettor can be convicted when the principal offender was not charged with or tried for the substantive offence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court erred by failing to frame a proper charge against the principal offender, Mir Zaman, for the distinct offence of buying or hiring for prostitution under Section 14, despite evidence suggesting such activity. The Court ruled that Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which allows conviction for an uncharged offence, is an exception limited to cases where offences are cognate or doubtful, and cannot be used to bypass the requirement of a formal charge for distinct offences. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case for a fresh trial, emphasizing that an accused must be formally charged to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 without a formal charge being framed against them?
  • Does Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit conviction for an uncharged offence when the offences are not cognate?
  • Can an abettor be punished for an offence if the principal offender was not charged with or tried for that specific substantive offence?
  • Is Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 controlled by the provisions of Section 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rawato and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 333 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-04-16
  Zina-bil-Jabrbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRforensic evidencereligious enmityappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged commission of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, considering the defense's plea of false implication due to religious enmity. The Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the timeline and the alleged discovery of foot-prints, rendered the evidence unreliable. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of credible forensic corroboration and the victim's inconsistent statements. The key principle laid down is that in Zina cases, where there is a plausible defense of enmity and the prosecution's evidence is riddled with material discrepancies and lacks forensic support, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused to ensure the safety of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a Zina case warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim when such testimony is contradicted by material evidence and lacks forensic corroboration?
  • Is the defense of religious enmity a relevant factor for the court to consider when evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of foot-print evidence when it is not contemporaneously recorded or corroborated by independent witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1975 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-03
  narcotics smugglingopium recoverysolitary witnessprohibition orderreduction of sentenceprocedural technicalitieschemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nushki, convicting the appellant under Article 3(2) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for transporting a huge quantity of opium and sentencing him to fifteen years rigorous imprisonment with fine and stripes. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction could be sustained on the solitary statement of the complainant without examining another witness, and whether procedural defects vitiated the trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution is not bound to examine every witness and that quality of evidence prevails over quantity, finding the testimony corroborated by the recovery of narcotics and the chemical examiner's report. The Court further held that in narcotics cases, courts should adopt a dynamic approach and overlook minor technical procedural defects. While maintaining the conviction, the Court accepted the plea for leniency regarding the appellant's age and circumstances, reducing the sentence of imprisonment and fine. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a solitary, reliable witness coupled with material corroboration like the recovery of narcotics is sufficient for conviction, and technicalities should not override the broader interest of justice in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the solitary statement of the complainant without examining other witnesses of the crime?
  • Does the non-routing of a police report through the Superintendent of Police vitiate the trial under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How should courts approach procedural technicalities in cases involving the transportation and smuggling of narcotics?
  • Whether the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics can serve as sufficient corroboration to the testimony of a prosecution witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafhat Rashid and 7 others vs Ghulam Sarwar2000 YLR 2523 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-12
  family courtex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreejactitation of marriageservice of summonswritten statementstatutory time limit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Judge Family Court Muzaffarabad setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a suit for jactitation of marriage. The appellant filed the suit, and after issuing notice by registered post and newspaper publication, the Trial Court initiated ex parte proceedings and subsequently granted an ex parte decree. The respondent later applied to set aside the ex parte decree, contending that the Trial Court had initiated ex parte proceedings before the expiry of the statutory fifteen-day period allowed for appearance. The Trial Court allowed the application. The appellate court held that section 9 of The Family Courts Act provides a maximum time limit of fifteen days from service for the defendant to appear and file a written statement, and initiating ex parte proceedings before the expiry of this period is contrary to law. The appellate court concluded that the Trial Court rightly set aside the ex parte decree, especially given the sensitive nature of a jactitation of marriage suit which requires adjudication on merits. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court can initiate ex parte proceedings against a defendant before the expiry of the fifteen-day time limit specified for appearance?
  • Is the provision requiring a plaintiff to send notice by registered post and newspaper publication within three days mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Can an ex parte decree passed in a suit for jactitation of marriage be set aside if proceedings were initiated prematurely?
  Read full judgment →
• Pirak alias Wadera vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 796 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-10-05
  murderdying declarationcircumstantial evidenceidentification paradecommutation of sentencedeath penaltyabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sibi, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of a taxi driver who was hired, abducted, and confined inside a cave by blocking its entrance with heavy stones, resulting in death by internal hemorrhage. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, the necessity of an identification parade where the accused is known by face or alias, and the proportionality of the death penalty. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular and circumstantial evidence, corroborated by the dying declaration of the deceased. However, considering that the exact intention behind the confinement and whether a direct intent to kill existed remained ambiguous, the court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon to sustain a conviction when corroborated by other consistent prosecution evidence?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused is previously known to the witnesses by face or alias?
  • Does the absence of the accused's name in the initial first information report necessarily prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • When should the extreme penalty of death be commuted to life imprisonment in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence and abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1176 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-01-25
  Zina-bil-Jabroutraging modestyreduction of sentencealteration of convictionappellate decisioncriminal force
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant Nizamuddin challenged his conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, whereby the trial court sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes of whipping. The core legal question was whether the charge of Zina-bil-Jabr was proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence on record and the delayed reporting by the victim. The Federal Shariat Court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Zina-bil-Jabr, but the lesser offence of assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty stood proved. Consequently, the court altered the conviction to one under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone along with a fine, and set aside the sentence of whipping as it had been abolished by Parliament. The key principle laid down is that where major sexual offences lack convincing and independent proof, the conviction may be altered to a lesser proved offence of outraging the modesty of a woman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be altered to section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when Zina-bil-Jabr is not proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a sentence of whipping awarded by a trial court be set aside if it has been abolished by an Act of Parliament?
  • Whether delayed reporting by a victim affects the trustworthiness of an allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr?
  Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad vs The State2000 MLD 2003 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-06-14
  chemical examiner reportadmissibility of evidencenarcoticsprohibition orderremand of casecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub, whereby the appellant was convicted under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to 5 years' R.I. with a fine. The core legal question revolves around the admissibility of the Chemical Expert's report under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the author of the report was not a duly notified Chemical Examiner at the time of its issuance. The Federal Shariat Court held that a report issued by a person not duly notified as a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner is inadmissible in evidence on mere presentation without formal proof and cannot form the basis of a conviction without examining the expert in court. The court laid down the principle that admissibility under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 strictly requires the report to be under the hand of a duly notified government expert, and set aside the conviction, remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing the prosecution an opportunity to formally prove the report.

  Questions settled

  • Is a report prepared by a Chemical Expert who was not duly notified by the government admissible in evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without formal proof?
  • Can a conviction be legally sustained on the basis of an unproved chemical report where the expert was not examined as a witness?
  • What is the procedure when a chemical report is found inadmissible due to the lack of official notification of the expert at the time of its issuance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhkum Uddin vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1910 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-11
  RassagiriPatharidaricattle theftOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinanceharbouring criminalscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, convicting the appellant under section 21(2) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for 'Rassagiri' or 'Patharidari' (harbouring persons engaged in cattle theft) and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment, stripes, fine, and forfeiture of immovable property. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence established that the appellant harbored individuals engaged specifically in the theft of cattle as required by the statute. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to bring forth any evidence regarding cattle theft or that the alleged dacoit was engaged in cattle theft, rendering the provisions of section 21(2) inapplicable. The Court laid down the principle that the offence of 'Rassagiri' or 'Patharidari' under section 21 necessitates direct proof that the person harboured is engaged in the specific crime of cattle theft, and a conviction cannot be sustained without evidence establishing this foundational element.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of Rassagiri or Patharidari under section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does harboring a person accused of general crimes without proof of involvement in cattle theft attract liability under section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • How must the prosecution prove that a person sheltered is engaged in the theft of cattle?
  • Can a conviction under section 21(2) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained solely on the basis of previous criminal cases against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 374 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-03
  Prohibition Orderopium recoveryspy informationmandatory recovery witnesseslocal inspectionbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants assailed their conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, following the alleged recovery of 20 kilograms of raw opium from a car inside a Dheri on the basis of spy information. The core legal questions involved the failure of the trial court to comply with appellate directions regarding local inspection of the site under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to verify the defence plea of physical impossibility of the car entering the premises, and the violation of mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding public witnesses during recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the disobedience of remand directions prejudiced the accused and that non-compliance with Section 103, Cr.P.C., without justification despite prior spy information eroded the credibility of police witnesses. The court laid down that procedural lapses and disregard of mandatory recovery safeguards, compounded by failure to test vital defence pleas through local inspection, vitiate the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the police to associate public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite prior spy information, renders the recovery doubtful?
  • Does the disobedience of appellate court directions to conduct a local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prejudice the accused?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major procedural omissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 3 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1989 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-03-14
  abductionZina Ordinancebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdelay in F.I.R.corroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur, against four appellants for offences under sections 11 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution had proven the abduction of the complainant's wife beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in lodging the F.I.R., the non-production of the alleged victim, and the failure to examine crucial corroborative witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including an unexplained eight-month delay in reporting, the failure to produce the victim or independent witnesses, and the existence of long-standing enmity between the parties. Furthermore, the Court noted that simultaneous conviction under both sections 11 and 16 was legally untenable as their ingredients do not overlap. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its case, thereby entitling the appellants to the benefit of the doubt and immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted under both section 11 and section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several months in lodging an F.I.R. in an abduction case create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the non-production of the alleged victim in an abduction case fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Irshad and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 1756 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-04-19
  criminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidencewitness credibilitydismissal in liminemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, which acquitted the respondent of charges. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The trial court had acquitted the respondent after finding significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the failure to produce eye-witnesses, the implausibility of the complainant hearing the victim's alarm from a distance of two acres, and contradictions in the victim's testimony regarding her injuries and medical examination findings. Additionally, the court noted the absence of recovered firearm empties despite the complainant's claim of shots being fired. Upon review, the appellate court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the trial court's findings. Consequently, the court held that the trial court's assessment of the evidence was sound and that the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment where the trial court's reasoning is supported by the record and free from material misappreciation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment when the appellant fails to show that the trial court's findings were incorrect or contradictory to the record?
  • Is the testimony of a complainant reliable when they claim to have heard an alarm from a distance of two acres while adjacent neighbors did not?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover firearm empties, despite claims of shots being fired, constitute a valid ground for the trial court to doubt the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1770 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-03-30
  sodomycriminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencesentence reductioncorroborationSection 377 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, which convicted the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy, following his acquittal under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction for sodomy, given the victim's death prior to trial and the appellant's plea of innocence based on enmity. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the FIR was lodged promptly, the ocular witnesses were credible and lacked direct animosity toward the accused, and the medical evidence, including the Chemical Examiner's report, fully corroborated the prosecution's version. While maintaining the conviction, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to six years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the appellant's age at the time of the offense and the significant time elapsed since the occurrence. The fine was also reduced to be more commensurate with the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on ocular and medical evidence when the victim dies before trial?
  • Does the prompt registration of an FIR serve as a significant factor in establishing the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the appellate court empowered to reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to a fixed term of rigorous imprisonment based on the age of the accused and the time elapsed since the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 3others vs The State2000 MLD 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-07-15
  robberyhouse trespassstolen propertydual convictionsentencing reductionbenefit of section 382-Bcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 392, 452, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. At the hearing, the counsel for the appellants did not challenge the conviction for robbery and house trespass but prayed for leniency in sentencing and argued that simultaneous conviction for both robbery under section 392 and dishonest retention of stolen property under section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was illegal. The court held that a person convicted of robbery cannot simultaneously be convicted of receiving or retaining the stolen property arising from the same transaction, as a robber inherently possesses the stolen booty. The court maintained the convictions under sections 392 and 452, set aside the conviction under section 412, reduced the substantive prison sentences, and extended the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted of robbery under section 392 and dishonest retention of stolen property under section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to afford the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused in the absence of special circumstances?
  • Can a person found guilty of theft or robbery be separately charged and convicted for retaining possession of the same stolen property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noshi vs The State2000 MLD 302 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-16
  ZinaHudood OrdinanceSection 103 Cr.P.C.recovery witnessesbenefit of doubtsearch warrantcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction could be sustained despite the prosecution’s failure to associate public witnesses during the search and the existence of significant evidentiary contradictions. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, setting aside the judgment and acquitting the appellants. The ratio decidendi established that the failure to associate respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses during a search, particularly when the police had prior intelligence, constitutes a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendering the recovery proceedings doubtful. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where medical evidence contradicts the complainant's account and the prosecution's procedural actions—such as the backdating of search warrants—demonstrate a lack of clean hands, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment also affirmed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applies mutatis mutandis to Zina cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a search, when prior information was available, violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to cases under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant's testimony is directly contradicted by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom vs Bashir Ahmad and 2 others2000 P Cr. L J 1054 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-02-10
  Section 265-K acquittalZina-bil-Jabrpremature acquittaldiscretionary powersremand of caseappreciation of evidenceHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Adu, which acquitted three respondents of charges under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, invoking Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in acquitting the accused before the prosecution had fully presented its evidence, despite the existence of eye-witness testimony and positive chemical reports. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s exercise of power was premature, arbitrary, and perverse. The Court emphasized that while Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits acquittal at any stage, this discretionary power must be exercised sparingly and judiciously to prevent abuse of process. It established that a court should not stifle a prosecution at the outset; rather, it must ensure full opportunity for both parties to present evidence and only acquit when it reaches a definite conclusion that no conviction is possible. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a full trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise the power of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the prosecution has concluded its evidence?
  • Is the discretionary power to acquit under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute or subject to judicial restraint?
  • Does the existence of eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence preclude a trial court from acquitting an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed vs The State2000 YLR 2785 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-02-25
  narcotics controlrecovery proceedingspublic witnesseschemical examiner reportsafe custodymandatory procedurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, arising from the alleged recovery of heroin. The core legal questions concern the mandatory nature of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding public witnesses, and the evidentiary impact of an unexplained delay in sending contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It established that the provisions of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are mandatory; police officers must make specific, documented efforts to secure public witnesses rather than providing generalized excuses for their absence. Additionally, the Court emphasized that a significant, unexplained delay in transmitting contraband to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with a failure to prove the evidence remained in safe custody, creates a fatal doubt regarding potential tampering. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside due to the prosecution's failure to adhere to established legal procedures and maintain the integrity of the recovered evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding public witnesses mandatory for police recovery proceedings?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of contraband material during the period between recovery and chemical analysis?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the police fail to make specific efforts to secure public witnesses during a search?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Muhammad Asghar and 4 others2000 MLD 313 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-12
  abductioncriminal appealacquittalOffence of Zinadeceitful meansforced marriagere-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of acquittal passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving the alleged abduction of a minor girl. The complainant challenged the acquittal of five respondents regarding an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. During proceedings, the appellant withdrew the appeal against four respondents, limiting the challenge to the acquittal of the primary respondent, Muhammad Younas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charge of abduction by deceitful means with the intent to compel marriage. The Federal Shariat Court examined the evidence, including the victim's testimony and recovery, finding that the respondent had indeed abducted the victim through deceit. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting the defense's theory of voluntary departure. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of the respondent, convicted him, and imposed a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, while affirming the principle that abduction is complete when deceitful means are used to induce a person to move for an illicit purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of abduction under Section 362 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the use of force or deceitful means to induce a person to move?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the prosecution evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the testimony of a victim in an abduction case sufficient to sustain a conviction if corroborated by recovery and other circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the offence of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, require the actual completion of the illicit purpose for the offence to be considered complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob and anothers vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 260 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-10-11
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) OrdinanceNikahnama discrepanciesdefense witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the suspension of sentence and release of appellants on bail pending appeal. The appellants were convicted under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed regarding a claimed Nikah between the appellants to warrant the suspension of their sentence and grant of bail. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the application, holding that conflicting testimonies and clear discrepancies between the defense witnesses regarding the performance and registration of the Nikah precluded any relief. The court established that prima facie unverified and contradictory defense evidence regarding marriage is insufficient to justify suspending a sentence pending appeal under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies in defense testimony regarding a claimed marriage are sufficient to deny the suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted pending appeal in a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 based on an unverified plea of Nikah?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahazulla vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 534 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-04-28
  conviction for uncharged offenceremandHudood Ordinancekidnappingdistinct offencesCode of Criminal Procedurefair trialframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Loralai, convicting the appellant under Section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant was originally charged under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping. The core legal question addressed by the Federal Shariat Court is whether an accused charged with a minor offence under one statute can be legally convicted of a major and distinct offence under an entirely different penal statute without a proper charge, and whether the failure to join other apparent accomplices vitiates the trial. The Court held that an accused charged with a minor offence cannot be convicted of a major offence under a different statute unless covered strictly by statutory exceptions like Sections 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio decidendi is that a conviction for a distinct offence under a different enactment without a formal charge prejudices the accused and is legally unsustainable. The Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person charged with a minor offence under one statute be convicted of a major offence falling under a different penal statute?
  • Does Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit conviction for a distinct offence governed by a separate enactment without a proper charge?
  • What is the extent of control exercised by Section 236 over Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a trial court initiate proceedings against other apparent offenders indicated by the record during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bakhsh alias Laloo vs The State2000 YLR 1871 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-06-09
  zinakidnappingpubertyadultfree consentbenefit of the doubtstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant under section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellant kidnapped a minor girl, Mst. Parveen, and subjected her to Zina. The core legal question concerned whether the victim was a minor or had attained puberty, and whether her marriage to the appellant was voluntary. The Federal Shariat Court held that the medical evidence established that the victim had attained puberty and was an adult within the contemplation of the law, and that her initial contradictory statements were given under social pressure to protect family honor. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that attainment of puberty constitutes adulthood under the relevant Hudood laws regardless of chronological age, and a voluntary marriage contracted by a puberty girl entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt in charges of abduction and Zina.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the attainment of puberty determines adulthood under section 2(a) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 irrespective of chronological age?
  • Can a conviction for kidnapping and Zina be sustained when the alleged victim voluntarily contracts marriage and gives inconsistent statements due to social pressures?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 compared to subsequent deposition at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2000 YLR 951 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-01-13
  concurrent sentencesseparate trialsdistinct offencesinherent powersarms ordinanceharabahends of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was registered upon a reference from the High Court of Baluchistan, seeking to make the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant in two separate cases—one under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and another under section 17(3) of Harabah read with section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code—run concurrently. The core legal question was whether sentences awarded in distinct, unrelated trials at different times for separate offences can be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 or section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the application, holding that where an accused has been convicted at separate trials for distinct and unconnected offences committed at different times and places, and where no legal or constitutional provision or double jeopardy principle is violated, the court's discretionary power to order concurrent sentences should not be exercised. The key principle laid down is that inherent or statutory powers to make sentences run concurrently must be exercised sparingly and only where necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent illegality, rather than for separate, unrelated offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentences awarded in separate trials for distinct offences committed at different times can be ordered to run concurrently?
  • Can powers under section 397 or section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be exercised to make sentences concurrent for unrelated crimes?
  • Does the prohibition against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to distinct offences tried separately?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah and another vs The State2000 YLR 2330 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-02-16
  Section 512 CrPCrecording of evidenceabsconding accusedright of cross-examinationOffence of Zinatrial procedureremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether prosecution witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of the appellants, could be tendered for cross-examination without fresh examination-in-chief in the presence of the accused. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s procedure was illegal and materially prejudiced the appellants. The Court ruled that Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a specific exception applicable only to absconders or unknown persons and cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 353, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 133, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which mandate that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial with directions to re-examine the witnesses properly. The Court also clarified that while non-administration of oath does not vitiate a trial, failure to record evidence in the accused's presence does.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an accused be used against them if they were not absconding at the time of recording?
  • Does the non-administration of an oath to a witness automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to merely tender witnesses for cross-examination without conducting an examination-in-chief in the presence of the accused?
  • Does Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the general requirement under Section 353, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah alias Bhutto vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 2046 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-15
  RassagiriPatharidariharbouring dacoitsOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancecattle theftvitiated trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellant under Section 21(2) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for allegedly harbouring dacoits. The core legal questions involved whether the ingredients of 'Rassagiri' or 'Patharidari' under Section 21 of the said Ordinance were satisfied, and whether the trial was vitiated due to a misplaced and incorrect charge. The Federal Shariat Court held that Section 21 specifically applies to persons engaged in cattle theft with an understanding to share the proceeds, whereas the persons allegedly harboured were dacoits, and no evidence whatsoever linked them or the appellant to cattle theft. Furthermore, the Court held that trying the appellant under a wrong charge without reading out the essential ingredients of the offence vitiated the trial. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The key principle laid down is that an offence under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 strictly requires proof of ingredients relating to cattle theft ('Rassagiri' or 'Patharidari'), and a failure to establish these statutory ingredients or framing a misplaced charge vitiates the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of Rassagiri or Patharidari under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 applies to the harbouring of dacoits not engaged in cattle theft?
  • Does a misplaced and incorrect charge that fails to read out the essential ingredients of the offence vitiate the trial?
  • What are the essential statutory ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi and others vs The State2000 YLR 1973 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-04-06
  abductionOffence of Zinacriminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencevoluntary marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged abduction of a woman. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charge of abduction beyond reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was inherently unreliable, noting that the victim's testimony lacked corroboration and was contradicted by her own conduct, including her voluntary presence at the court premises to execute an affidavit of marriage. Furthermore, medical evidence failed to support allegations of rape or violence. The Court concluded that the evidence suggested the victim had left her home voluntarily to marry one of the appellants but returned to her family due to social pressure. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained on the solitary, inconsistent testimony of a complainant when the surrounding circumstances and evidence raise reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim when the circumstances suggest voluntary conduct?
  • Does the absence of medical evidence of violence undermine a charge of abduction and rape?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent with the victim's own actions, such as executing an affidavit of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 553 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-06-30
  compromisecompounding of offencesQatl-e-AmdTa'ziralteration of convictionjurisdiction of trial courtpost-decision compromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nushki, rejecting an application for the acceptance of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was originally convicted under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but on appeal, the Federal Shariat Court altered the conviction to section 302(b) read with section 392. Subsequently, the parties effected a compromise. The trial court dismissed the compromise application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction since the accused were not tried for a compoundable offense of Qisas. The core legal question was whether an offense of murder punishable as Ta'zir under section 302(b) can be compounded after conviction and whether the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain a compromise application post-appeal. The court held that pursuant to section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, offenses affecting the human body, including murder punished as Ta'zir, can be compounded with the permission of the court at any time before the execution of the sentence, and the trial court is competent to entertain such applications. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offense of murder punished as Ta'zir under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code be compounded?
  • Does the trial court have jurisdiction to entertain and give effect to a compromise between parties after the decision of the case or appeal?
  • Are sentences awarded for murder as Ta'zir compoundable with the permission of the court in view of section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Masih alias Shaukat and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1615 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-04-06
  ZinaabductionNikahnamaburden of proofcriminal appealreasonable doubtconversion to Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 16 and Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for alleged abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the appellants' defense that they had converted to Islam and solemnized a valid Nikah. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, noting significant contradictions in the testimony of key witnesses and the failure of the complainant to disclose the appellants' marriage in the initial report. The Court found that the appellants successfully established their defense through the testimony of the Nikah Khawan and the production of a Nikahnama, which the prosecution failed to rebut. The Court laid down the principle that once a Nikahnama is produced in defense, the burden lies on the prosecution to challenge its validity, and the failure of investigating officers to verify a plea of marriage and conversion to Islam undermines the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to investigate a defense plea of marriage and conversion to Islam weaken the case against the accused?
  • Is the production of a Nikahnama sufficient to establish a valid marriage in the absence of a challenge by the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce direct evidence and relies on contradictory witness statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs The State2000 YLR 2807 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-11-05
  jail criminal appealprohibition ordernon-appealing convictbenefit of acquittalrule of consistencydouble jeopardyhudood case
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal arose from a judgment convicting the appellant, Barkat, under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 in Hudood Case No. 11 of 1997. The core legal question was whether a non-appealing convict is automatically entitled to the benefit of an acquittal granted to co-accused in a connected appeal arising from the same incident, or whether a specific direction by the court is required. The Federal Shariat Court held that while non-appealing convicts can be extended the benefit of acquittal under the rule of consistency, a conviction of a competent court holds the field until formally set aside, and an accused cannot be released without a specific direction from the court. The principle laid down is that although appellate courts may extend the benefit of acquittal or sentence reduction to non-appealing co-accused, a formal order or specific direction is mandatory for the release of an accused who did not file an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-appealing convict is automatically entitled to the benefit of an acquittal granted to a co-accused in a connected appeal?
  • Does a conviction recorded by a competent court hold the field and prevent release without a specific judicial direction?
  • Can the High Court exercise suo motu powers to reduce or set aside sentences recorded against non-appealing convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Aminur Rahman Malangai vs The State2000 MLD 286 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-07-07
  Zina-bil-Jabrmedical evidencechain of custodyforensic reportreasonable doubtcriminal appealacquittalvirginity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 452 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged commission of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically considering the medical evidence and the integrity of forensic samples. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The medical examination revealed an intact hymen, which contradicted the victim's testimony of sexual intercourse, thereby undermining her credibility. Additionally, the Court found that the chain of custody regarding forensic samples was compromised, as the evidence remained in the possession of an unexamined police official for over a month before reaching the laboratory. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes that medical findings of virginity are critical in Zina cases and that a broken chain of custody for forensic evidence creates reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an intact hymen in a medical examination of an alleged victim of Zina-bil-Jabr create reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offense?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the chain of custody for forensic evidence is broken due to unexplained delays in police custody?
  • Is the testimony of a victim in a Zina case sufficient for conviction if it is contradicted by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Zeb and others vs The State and others2000 P Cr. L J 815 · Federal Shariat Court
  Zina-bil-JabrTasadiqul ZojainNikahOffence of ZinaRetracted allegationCriminal appealSubstantive evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged offence of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the complainant, who initially alleged rape, subsequently asserted that she was the legally wedded wife of the co-accused and that the pregnancy resulted from their lawful marriage. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The court accepted the appellants' statements regarding their marriage, applying the principle of Tasadiqul Zojain (testification of spouses). It held that where spouses confirm their marital status, it is not necessary to prove a formal Nikahnama, and such statements are sufficient to establish the relationship of husband and wife. Consequently, the court found the evidence insufficient to substantiate the charge of Zina, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The judgment affirms that in the absence of substantive evidence, conviction cannot be based on hearsay or retracted allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statement of the accused persons claiming to be husband and wife sufficient to establish a valid Nikah?
  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained when the complainant retracts the allegation of rape and claims a lawful marriage with the accused?
  • Is it necessary to produce a formal Nikahnama to prove the existence of a marriage in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a conviction be based on hearsay evidence when no substantive or direct evidence is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Ahmad and others vs The State acid others2000 YLR 960 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-01-31
  Zina-bil-Jabrfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussole testimony of prosecutrixburden of proofspecial plea of marriagecorroborationHudood lawscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a reference to a third judge of the Federal Shariat Court due to a difference of opinion between two learned judges regarding cross-appeals filed against a trial court judgment. The trial court had convicted the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting him of the charge under section 11 of the same Ordinance. The core legal questions involved whether the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applied to discard the entire testimony of the prosecutrix when her allegation of abduction was disbelieved, whether a solitary statement of the prosecutrix without corroboration was sufficient for conviction under the Hudood laws, and whether the burden shifted to the accused to substantiate a special plea of valid marriage. The court held that the maxim has no universal application and evidence must be sifted to separate the grain from the chaff, that the sole testimony of a credible victim is sufficient to base a conviction in Zina cases, and that raising a special defence of valid marriage shifts the burden of proof to the accused to substantiate that plea. Consequently, the court dismissed both appeals, maintaining the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to discard the entire testimony of a witness in criminal trials?
  • Is the sole testimony of a prosecutrix sufficient to sustain a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr without corroboration?
  • Does the onus shift to the accused to prove a special plea of valid marriage raised in defense?
  • Whether the acquittal on a charge of abduction vitiates a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others vs Zafar Iqbal and others2000 MLD 965 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-12-06
  unnatural offenceattempted sodomyenhancement of sentencedouble jeopardysuo motu revisionestoppelDaman
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federal Shariat Court addressed an appeal, a criminal revision, and a suo motu notice regarding the conviction and sentencing of the appellants. The trial court had convicted the appellants under Section 337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, sentencing them to six months' imprisonment. The Federal Shariat Court examined whether enhancing a sentence on appeal or revision constitutes double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that appellate and revisional proceedings are a continuation of the original trial, and thus do not constitute double jeopardy. While the Court stopped further proceedings regarding the bodily injuries (Jarah) because the victim had accepted the payment of Daman (invoking estoppel under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984), it found the six-month sentence for attempted sodomy grossly inadequate. Consequently, the Court enhanced the sentence under Article 18 of the Ordinance of 1979 to three years' rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the enhancement of a sentence by an appellate or revisional court violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are appellate or revisional proceedings considered a continuation of the original trial for the purposes of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the acceptance of Daman by a victim operate as an estoppel under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 against further prosecution or enhancement of sentence for bodily hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kalam vs The State2000 PLD Federal Shariat Court 63 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-17
  zinanikahmarriage registrationmuslim family lawscriminal appealhudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, East Karachi, to 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and 30 stripes of whipping. The core legal question concerns the validity and proof of a marriage (Nikah) where the Nikah was not formally registered and the registration records were disputed. The Federal Shariat Court held that the registration of a Nikah is not a mandatory prerequisite for its validity under Islamic law or section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as non-registration only attracts a penalty and does not invalidate the marriage itself. The court established the key principle that under Muslim law, a Nikah is validly performed through offer and acceptance in the presence of witnesses, and registration is merely a subsequent administrative requirement rather than the substantive proof of marriage. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of a Nikah a mandatory prerequisite for its validity under Muslim law?
  • What are the legal consequences of non-registration of a marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Can a marriage be proven in the absence of an official Nikah register entry if witnesses testify to the offer and acceptance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah alias Jajj vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1821 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs The State1999 MLD 2330 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mahmood and another vs The State1999 MLD 2508 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
• Tar1q Mahmood vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 654 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sudheer Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 664 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Sohail Hameed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad1999 P Cr. L J 1662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• Shamsur Rehman alias Zahid Fazal vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1797 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and others vs The State1999 MLD 2332 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sampat vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed alias Saeedu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 812 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali alias Riasu and others vs The State1999 MLD 2538 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1939 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Qutubuddin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1572 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
• Nizam-Ud-Din vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1761 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-26
  jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtmaintainability of appealHudood OrdinancePakistan Penal Codeframing of chargereturn of appealappellate forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal was forwarded by the Balochistan High Court to the Federal Shariat Court for disposal. The appellant was convicted by the trial court solely under Sections 324, 337-I, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, although the initial FIR and challan referenced Sections 9 and 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The trial court had framed charges and conducted the trial exclusively under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Federal Shariat Court considered whether an appeal is maintainable before it when the accused was neither charged, tried, nor convicted under any provision of the Hudood Ordinance. The Court held that holding a trial under the Hudood Ordinance is a condition precedent for the maintainability of an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Ordinance. Where a trial court wrongly assumes jurisdiction or frames charges only under general law, the appeal lies to the regular appellate forum, not the Shariat Court. The appeal was returned to the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable before the Federal Shariat Court when the accused was neither charged nor tried under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether holding a trial under the Hudood Ordinance is a condition precedent for an appeal to lie to the Federal Shariat Court under Section 24 of the Ordinance and Article 203-DD of the Constitution?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Federal Shariat Court if a trial court wrongly assumes jurisdiction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of the Hudood Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1636 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs The State1999 MLD 2432 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar and another vs The State1999 MLD 2361 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain Ghori vs The State1999 MLD 2376 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 699 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-27
  Zina-bil-JabrOffence of ZinaSolitary testimonyDelayed FIRCorroborationCriminal appealHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based primarily on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix, particularly when there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that in cases of Zina, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to warrant a conviction provided it inspires confidence and remains consistent under cross-examination. The Court further laid down that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially in tribal societies where there is inherent hesitation to report crimes involving the honor of women, provided the delay is reasonably explained. Furthermore, the Court held that physical evidence, such as the victim becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child as a result of the forced intercourse, provides substantial corroboration to the victim's testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case in Zina offences?
  • Is pregnancy resulting from alleged forced intercourse considered sufficient corroboration of a victim's testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The State1999 MLD 3318 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Liaqat Hussain And 6 Other1999 CLC 1130 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and another vs The State1999 YLR 133 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalam and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-06-16
  Section 342 CrPCSection 364 CrPCSection 340(2) CrPCincurable illegalityremand for fresh trialProhibition Hadd Orderexamination of accuseddefence evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the judgment of the Political Agent/Sessions Judge, Khyber, convicting three appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentencing each to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. Upon reviewing the record, the Court discovered severe procedural lacunae during trial. Specifically, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when recording the appellants' statements under Section 342, failing to append the required certification or memorandum. Additionally, the trial court failed to inform the appellants of their right to give evidence on oath under Section 340(2) or inquire if they wished to call defence evidence. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 364 is an incurable illegality resulting in a failure of justice that falls outside the saving ambit of Section 537. Consequently, the FSC set aside the conviction and remanded the case for fresh trial from the stage of recording proper statements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to append the mandatory certificate under Section 364(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. constitute an incurable illegality that vitiates the trial?
  • Is a failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 364 Cr.P.C. Curable under Section 537 Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the trial court under a mandatory duty to inform the accused of their right to give evidence on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim alias Malka vs The State1999 YLR 1475 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1999 MLD 2497 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs The State1999 MLD 2500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Khatoon vs Muhammad Safdar Satti and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1977 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mirza Tahir Hussain vs The State1999 MLD 2675 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Limited through Manager vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2468 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Maia Khan vs The State1999 YLR 2330 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Liaquat and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1004 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-16
  suspension of sentencebailsuckling childfundamental rightsprison conditionsconvict mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, on behalf of a female convict appellant, Mst. Shahida alias Hameeda, who gave birth to a child while incarcerated. The primary legal question was whether the suspension of the sentence was warranted given the birth of a suckling child and the lack of adequate facilities in prison for the infant's upbringing. The Court held that the infant, being innocent, should not suffer for the mother's alleged misdeeds, and that continued incarceration would violate the child's fundamental rights to liberty. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that separating a suckling child from the mother could be detrimental to the child's physical and psychic health. Consequently, the Court suspended the execution of the sentence pending the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that the welfare and fundamental rights of an innocent child must be prioritized, even in the context of a parent's criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the birth of a child in prison constitutes sufficient grounds for the suspension of a convict mother's sentence?
  • Does the continued incarceration of a mother with a suckling child violate the child's fundamental rights?
  • Can a court suspend the execution of a sentence pending appeal based on the health and welfare of a convict's infant child?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad alias Laloo and another vs The State1999 MLD 2622 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and another vs The State1999 MLD 2456 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
• Khan Ali vs The State1999 MLD 2477 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Javaid vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 40 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1999 YLR 1347 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and another vs The State1999 MLD 3085 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-19
  outraging modestynon-compoundable offencesentence reductioncompromisemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, which convicted the appellants under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for outraging the modesty of a woman, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction should be maintained given that the parties had reached a compromise outside of court. The Court held that the offence under Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not compoundable, and therefore, the conviction could not be set aside based on the compromise. However, considering the appellants were first-time offenders of a young age and the complainant had forgiven them, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while a compromise between parties cannot result in the acquittal of an accused for a non-compoundable offence, it may be considered as a mitigating factor by the appellate court when determining the appropriate quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable?
  • Can a court acquit an accused based on a compromise for a non-compoundable offence?
  • Can a compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating factor for the reduction of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi vs The State1999 MLD 2530 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 1370 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Farooq Azam vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 2555 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Aqil Meena vs Shanullah and anothers1999 MLD 466 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Sultan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2009 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1772 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →