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.

• Ali Ahmad and another vs The State1999 MLD 2646 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Alam Zaib vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1955 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 686 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 2089 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
• Afzal Mehmood vs Sajjad Ahmad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 2025 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 101 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Aftab Afgan alias Maboo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1526 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1595 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State and others1999 YLR 1298 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-05
  local commissionersite inspectioninterlocutory orderpower of reviewcriminal procedurefunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which rejected a previously submitted Local Commissioner's report regarding a site inspection in a criminal trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Had) Order 1979. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to appoint a Local Commissioner for site inspection under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the court could subsequently review and recall its own interlocutory order appointing such a commissioner. The Federal Shariat Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not provide for the appointment of a Local Commissioner for site inspection; rather, Section 539-B explicitly empowers only the judge or magistrate to conduct such inspections personally. Furthermore, the Court held that the bar against reviewing judgments under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to interlocutory orders. Consequently, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction to recall its erroneous order. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the petitioner's application for a personal site inspection by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a trial court to appoint a Local Commissioner for site inspection?
  • Is a trial court prohibited from reviewing or recalling its own interlocutory orders under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Who is authorized to conduct a site inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State1999 YLR 567 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos vs Abid Hussain and others1999 MLD 1638 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State1999 MLD 2344 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1811 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 1362 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1739 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Aaqil and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1754 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Zahir Khan and 2 others vs The State1998 MLD 421 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• Wajid Hussain---Appellant vs The State---Respondent1998 MLD 257 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh and 3 others vs The State1998 MLD 1281 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Iqbal vs The State1998 MLD 1067 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
• Tahir Baig vs The State1998 MLD 769 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1998 PSC (Crl.) 110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Shamroze Khan and another vs The State1998 MLD 409 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 704 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Muhammad Younus and another1998 MLD 705 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sasool Bakhsh and others vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 438 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-18
  appellate jurisdictionimplied repealstatutory interpretationProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderControl of Narcotic Substances Actrepugnancyforum of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a reference to a Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court to determine the appellate jurisdiction over convictions recorded under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the promulgation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, and the subsequent Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the later narcotic laws impliedly repealed the Hadd Order and which forum holds appellate jurisdiction over cases tried under the Hadd Order. The Court held that there is no express or implied repeal of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, as the statutes serve distinct purposes and are not repugnant. Furthermore, the Court established that where a trial court records a conviction under the Hadd Order, the appeal lies to the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of whether the offence was committed before or after the enactment of the narcotic laws. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of implied repeal is not to be lightly invoked; it requires clear repugnancy between statutes, and an appellate forum is determined by the law under which the conviction was recorded, even if the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 or the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 impliedly repeal the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Where a trial court records a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which court has appellate jurisdiction?
  • Does an appeal lie from a decision of a court that wrongly exercised jurisdiction in the same manner as a decision made with jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan and 3 others vs The State1998 MLD 1039 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Khan vs The State1998 MLD 633 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad alias Mitho vs The State1998 MLD 1924 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Akhtar and another vs The State and others1998 MLD 919 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Ishaque and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1563 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
• Nazar Dastgir alias Kaka vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 517 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Nasir Alias Tabla vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 SC 119) · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali alias Zafari alias Shaboo and 2 others vs The State1998 MLD 523 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1351 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1998 MLD 755 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin alias Seema vs The State1998 MLD 762 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sodagar vs The State1998 MLD 1123 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique alias Chheela and another vs The State1998 MLD 299 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Sajjawal Khan and 2 others1998 MLD 823 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 590 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahfooz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 457 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabir and another vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1648 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr and 5 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 383 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1998 MLD 437 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs Mst. Reshman and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1576 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-02
  zina-bil-jabrrapewhippingacquittal appealenhancement of sentencedefense witnesschemical examiner reporthudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves criminal appeals arising from a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of medical evidence and delay in lodging the F.I.R. in a rape case, the admissibility and use of police statements and defense witness testimonies, and the validity of a sentence of whipping in Tazir cases following legislative changes. The Federal Shariat Court held that minor discrepancies or delays do not inherently vitiate a prosecution case if corroborated, that defense witness testimony duly brought on record can be relied upon, and that sentences of whipping in Tazir cases stand remitted under the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. The court laid down principles regarding the evaluation of defense evidence, the presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals, and the mandatory application of statutory remissions of whipping sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case in an offence of rape?
  • Can a sentence of whipping awarded in a Tazir case be executed after the promulgation of the Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996?
  • How does an appellate court evaluate an appeal against an acquittal keeping in view the double presumption of innocence?
  • Whether contradictions between oral testimony and the chemical examiner's report regarding bloodstains are sufficient to demolish the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1998 MLD 270 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and another vs The State1998 MLD 367 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabreen Bibi vs Ghulam Maqsood and 2 others1998 MLD 1090 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran vs Saifal and others1998 P Cr. L J 1689 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-07
  complaint casepolice challanprocedural irregularityremandZinaabductiontrial procedurecourt witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a trial court judgment acquitting several accused persons in a case involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The complainant had filed a private complaint alongside a police challan, but the trial court failed to consolidate the proceedings or follow the mandatory procedure established by the Supreme Court for simultaneous complaint and challan cases. Specifically, the trial court did not treat the police witnesses as court witnesses to ensure comprehensive evidence was on record, nor did it properly address the allegations of biased police investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court committed material illegalities by disregarding the binding procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the acquittal judgment, finding that deciding the appeal on the existing record would cause prejudice to the parties. The case was remanded to the trial court with specific directions to follow the prescribed procedure, including recording the statements of police witnesses as court witnesses, re-examining the accused, and delivering a fresh judgment.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct procedure for a trial court to follow when both a private complaint and a police challan are pending regarding the same incident?
  • Can a trial court's failure to follow Supreme Court guidelines for the trial of complaint and challan cases constitute a material illegality necessitating a remand?
  • Should witnesses named in a police challan be examined as court witnesses when a private complaint is being tried simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chanini Begum vs The State1998 MLD 356 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 679 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Talib Hussain vs State1998 MLD 506 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad alias Laloo vs The State1998 MLD 1875 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khalid alias Khala vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 606 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs The State1998 MLD 992 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-31Read full judgment →
• Irfan Masih vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 716 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
• Hassan Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 496 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Jehan vs The State1998 MLD 288 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim alias Qasoo and another vs The State1998 MLD 746 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
• Federal Shariat Courtj Taj Muhammad and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1834 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Fahim Khan vs The State1998 MLD 1810 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Shah and another vs The State1998 MLD 816 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
• Chakkar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1665 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1708 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad Javed vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 486 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Anara and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 581 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 656 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Akmal Nawaz and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1821 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 365 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
• Waqar-Ul-Islam and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1107 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-28
  sodomybenefit of doubtforensic evidencechain of custodymedical jurisprudencecriminal appealserological matchingZina
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged commission of sodomy. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of conflicting medical evidence and a compromised chain of custody for forensic samples. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the medical evidence was unreliable, noting the absence of expected physical injuries on the victim and the failure of the medical officer to document necessary findings or obtain semen samples for serological matching. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the prosecution’s handling of forensic parcels was dubious, with significant delays and irregularities in delivery to the Chemical Examiner. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that failure to follow established forensic protocols and maintain a secure chain of custody creates reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to match the semen of the accused with semen found on the victim's swabs create reasonable doubt in a sodomy case?
  • What is the legal consequence of a dubious chain of custody regarding forensic parcels in criminal trials?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when medical evidence is contradictory and fails to support the prosecution's version of events?
  • Does the failure of a medical officer to document standard forensic findings in a medico-legal report undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mushk-E-Alam1997 P Cr. L J 1082 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Shafi1997 P Cr. L J 1659 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mazhar Hussain And Another1997 MLD 1422 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1666 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Saeed-Ur-Rehman alias Sheedoo and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1325 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-01Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1342 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1312 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Razaq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 892 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Nusrat vs The State1997 MLD 1358 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Noreen Rehman vs Raja Javed Akhtar1997 CLC 142 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-16
  dissolution of marriagepre-trial proceedingspersonal appearancefamily courtsreconciliation proceedingspower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mirpur, which dismissed the appellant's suit for dissolution of marriage due to her failure to make a personal appearance at the pre-trial stage. The core legal question is whether the personal appearance of a plaintiff is mandatory at the pre-trial proceedings under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act. The court held that the provisions of Section 10 do not make the personal attendance of parties indispensable, and a party may appear and be represented through a counsel or an authorized agent, particularly when residing abroad. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to conduct pre-trial proceedings in the presence of the appellant's attorney. The key principle established is that the personal attendance of parties during pre-trial reconciliation proceedings under the Family Courts Act is directory rather than mandatory, and representation through a duly authorized agent or counsel is permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether at the stage of pre-trial proceeding, the personal appearance of the plaintiff is mandatory under the Family Courts Act?
  • Can a party be represented by an authorized agent or counsel during pre-trial reconciliation proceedings under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act?
  • Does Section 18 of the Family Courts Act empower the court to permit an authorized agent to appear on behalf of a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2217 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muqarab Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1353 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1655 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1114 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1095 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-17
  gang rapeZinadelayed FIRadverse presumptionQanun-e-Shahadatmedical evidencecriminal appealwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Article 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for gang rape. The appellants contended that a fifteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and the lack of serological grouping undermined the prosecution's case. The Court addressed whether such a delay is fatal to a rape prosecution and how to interpret Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, regarding withheld evidence. The Court held that in cases of rape, delay is not fatal if a plausible, natural explanation exists, such as the victim's hesitation or waiting for a male relative. It further clarified that Article 129(g) does not mandate an adverse presumption against the prosecution for failing to produce witnesses who were not part of the initial investigation or were merely hearsay witnesses. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence, including positive chemical examiner reports, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the delay and minor discrepancies in witness statements.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in reporting a rape case necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Under what circumstances can a court invoke the presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, against the prosecution for withholding witnesses?
  • Does the absence of external injury marks on a victim necessarily imply consent in a rape case?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when there is a significant time gap between the occurrence and the medical examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 893 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil alias Kach vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1639 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Nazir And Another1997 MLD 297 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram alias Munji vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz vs The State1997 MLD 1433 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Bucha vs The State1997 MLD 1215 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1997 MLD 2223 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Allah Bux and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1472 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadha Begum vs Pervaiz Ahmed Khan And 2 Other1997 CLC 1925 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Mai (Tahira Sultana) And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2869 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-02-22
  Zinamandatory provisionsfair trialnon-supply of documentsprocedural irregularityremandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under sections 10(2) and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. The appellants argued that the trial court failed to supply copies of the complaint, statements recorded under sections 200/202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other relevant documents to the accused prior to the commencement of the trial, as mandated by section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This omission, the appellants contended, caused material prejudice to their defense. The prosecution and the State conceded that the record did not demonstrate compliance with these mandatory procedural requirements. The Federal Shariat Court held that the provisions of section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and their non-compliance vitiates the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh trial, directing that the requisite documents be supplied to the accused and the matter be disposed of expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to supply copies of the complaint and statements to the accused under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Are the provisions of section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the supply of documents to the accused mandatory?
  • Can a trial court judgment be set aside if the accused was not provided with the necessary documents to prepare their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1093 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-17
  narcoticsheroin possessionnon-production of case propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealprohibition lawevidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mst. Nargis, who was found guilty under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of 500 grams of heroin. The prosecution alleged that the heroin was recovered from the appellant's possession during a search of a coach at a check-post. During the trial, the prosecution failed to produce the case property (the recovered heroin) as evidence. Although a portion of the substance had been destroyed pursuant to a Magistrate's order, the remaining 15 grams retained for analysis were also not produced before the trial court. The Federal Shariat Court held that the failure to produce the case property during the trial created a significant lacuna in the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the State to produce all necessary evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court ruled that the absence of the case property rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the case property during trial entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the State obligated to produce the case property as evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal consequence when the retained sample of the alleged contraband is not produced during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kauser Parveen and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1338 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1377 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →