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.

• Meenhwassayo alias Khamiso vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1485 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1389 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-11Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1714 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1717 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1291 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1374 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1707 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Gulzar and 3 others vs Fida Hussain Shah and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1663 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Sambar Khan and another vs Damad Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1261 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ghani and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1510 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Faazil Hussain alias Phajoo vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1341 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Chiragh and another vs The State1997 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
• Chanderban and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1696 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-24
  sodomyunnatural offencemedical corroborationdelay in FIRabductionfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the victim's testimony corroborated by a delayed medical examination, the impact of minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements, and whether a short movement of the victim over a few yards constitutes abduction under the Hudood laws. The Federal Shariat Court held that medical evidence conclusively established the unnatural offence, minor contradictions do not destroy the entire prosecution case under the principle of sifting chaff from grain, the delay in reporting was naturally explained by socio-ethnic factors and compromise efforts, and the very short distance of removal did not satisfy the ingredients of abduction. The court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal for acquittal and the appeal for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed medical examination and chemical examiner reports can reliably corroborate a charge of sodomy after several days?
  • Does a minor contradiction in a witness statement regarding peripheral facts warrant the total rejection of the prosecution case under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can a very short movement of a victim over a distance of a few yards constitute the offence of abduction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • How does socio-ethnic pressure and community mediation for compromise affect the evaluation of delay in reporting sexual offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1088 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Ghulam Yaseen1997 P Cr. L J 896 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 620 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-18
  assault on womanstripping of clothespublic viewindependent witnesscriminal forcecriminal appealFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein they were sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court for assaulting a woman, dragging her, stripping her of her clothes, and exposing her to public view. The core legal questions involved whether the tearing of clothes during the process of dragging constitutes stripping under section 354-A, and whether an occurrence in privately-owned fields satisfies the requirement of exposure to public view. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and held that the voluntary act of dragging which resulted in the victim's clothes being torn and her body becoming naked fulfills the ingredients of section 354-A, and that a location with free public access constitutes public view. The key principle laid down is that causing a woman's clothes to be torn off through active physical violence such as dragging constitutes the offence of stripping under section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if the location is privately owned land to which the public has access.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tearing of a victim's clothes as a result of being dragged constitute stripping under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether an incident occurring in privately-owned fields can be considered as exposure to public view for the purposes of section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be corroborated by a single independent witness whose presence is established in the first information report?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameen Gul vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 857 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 610 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faqir Muhammad and another1995 MLD 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
• Taskeen vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1864 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
• Tahir alias Tahri vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 186 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shiraz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 189 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 668 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shankar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-10
  search warrantrecovery mashirsection 103 CrPCProhibition Order 1979opium recoveryillegal searchacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The prosecution alleged that pursuant to spy information, an excise party raided a house, conducted a personal search of the appellant, and searched the premises, recovering 5.25 Kgs of opium. The core legal questions pertained to the failure to obtain a search warrant before raiding a private house and the non-association of two respectable local inhabitants during the recovery search. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that obtaining a search warrant under Article 22 of the Order before searching private premises is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the search illegal. Furthermore, associating only one non-local witness violates Section 103, Cr.P.C., which requires two or more respectable local inhabitants, thereby vitiating the search proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is obtaining a search warrant under Article 22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 mandatory before raiding private premises?
  • Does associating only one public witness fulfill the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained discrepancy in weight between the recovered contraband and the Chemical Examiner's report create reasonable doubt regarding the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad alias Shera and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 625 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1794 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Rehmatullah vs The State1996 MLD 495 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sahib Gul and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 552 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 612 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
• Pervez Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1218 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz vs The State1996 MLD 1642 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 181 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-29
  heroin recoveryProhibition Orderchemical examiner reportdiscrepancy in sample weightbenefit of doubtcriminal appealillegal search
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate convicting the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the recovery and identity of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding mandatory search procedures and a material discrepancy in the weight of the sample recorded in the police evidence versus the Chemical Examiner's report. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and an unexplained, major discrepancy between the ten grams of sample alleged to have been dispatched and the one gram actually received by the Chemical Examiner created a serious, reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that a material discrepancy in the weight of a chemical sample, when unsupported by clarifying evidence, creates a fatal doubt regarding the integrity of the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a major discrepancy between the weight of the drug sample stated by police witnesses and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • Can a material discrepancy in the Chemical Examiner's report be dismissed as a mere clerical mistake without supporting evidence brought on record by the prosecution?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the public during recovery proceedings violate section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ali and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmad alias Munna vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 312 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 618 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mukamil Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1153 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahoor and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 850 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 616 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1446 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-04-24
  narcotics possessionprohibition enforcementSection 342 Cr.P.C.Section 516-A Cr.P.C.destruction of case propertyreasonable doubtcriminal appealpolice witness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for heroin possession. The core legal questions concern the validity of the trial court's conviction given the inconsistent acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence, the failure to examine the accused regarding incriminating grounds under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the improper destruction of case property. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, setting aside the judgment and acquitting the appellant. The Court established that a trial court must explicitly put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; failure to do so constitutes a fatal defect. Additionally, the Court clarified that the power to order the destruction of narcotics under the proviso to Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vests exclusively in the 'trial court,' rendering destruction certificates issued by other magistrates legally void in cases pending before a Sessions Court. Finally, the Court ruled that contradictory testimonies from key police witnesses and arbitrary judicial inconsistency regarding co-accused create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to question an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding specific grounds of conviction constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Does the term 'the Court' in the proviso to Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 refer to any magistrate or exclusively to the trial court?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the trial court acquits a co-accused on identical evidence while convicting the other?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs The State1996 P C. L J 1866 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 136 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 440 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-23
  narcotics possessionprohibition enforcementchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtrecovery witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 20 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the absence of independent recovery witnesses, the propriety of the complainant acting as the Investigating Officer, and the reliability of the Chemical Examiner’s report due to chain of custody concerns. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the absence of independent witnesses was justified by the circumstances of night-time patrolling and the complainant acting as the Investigating Officer is admissible if corroborated, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court identified fatal gaps in the chain of custody, including unexplained delays in dispatching the sample, the failure to examine the official responsible for safe custody, and discrepancies between the sealing method and the weight of the recovered substance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a night-time search necessarily violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the evidence of a police officer who acts as both the complainant and the Investigating Officer admissible in a criminal trial?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner and a lack of evidence regarding safe custody create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 843 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-23
  narcoticsheroin recoverychain of custodyfalse implicationcriminal appealacquittalProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha Camp at Khushab, for the possession of 700 grams of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions concerned the integrity of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the chain of custody of the recovered sample and the allegations of false implication due to personal enmity. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the sample parcel, as the complainant retained it in his personal possession for one day before depositing it at the police station, creating a significant gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the court found the appellant's defense of enmity with the police officials credible, given the lack of evidence to rule out tampering. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the chain of custody of contraband is broken and unexplained, the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retention of a contraband sample in the personal custody of a complainant for one day without explanation create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove that the sample parcel was not tampered with?
  • Is an acquittal warranted when the prosecution fails to address credible allegations of personal enmity between the accused and the investigating police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 688 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida vs The State1996 MLD 476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleema vs The State1996 MLD 162 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 179 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Masserat Bibi vs Muhammad Bashir1996 MLD 692 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-20
  family court appeallimitation act section 29dissolution of marriagecrueltykhulareturn of ornamentsspecial law limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal called in question the validity of a Family Court judgment regarding the dissolution of marriage and the return of ornaments. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal filed against a Family Court judgment was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the Family Court was justified in dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula' and ordering the return of ornaments despite proving cruelty, and whether a party is bound by an offer made by their father without power of attorney. The Federal Shariat Court held that section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to special laws like the Family Courts Act when the First Schedule of the Limitation Act omits a period of limitation, thus allowing the exclusion of time spent obtaining copies under section 12, rendering the appeal timely. The court further held that once cruelty was proved, the lower court was bound to dissolve the marriage on that ground rather than Khula', and that a father's unauthenticated offer or counter-offer cannot bind an adult appellant. The appeal was accepted and the decree modified accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to appeals under the Family Courts Act when no limitation period is prescribed in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act?
  • Can the time spent in obtaining copies of judgments be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 for appeals governed by special laws?
  • Is a Family Court justified in granting dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' when an issue regarding cruelty has already been proved?
  • Is an adult party bound by an oath or offer made by their father during court proceedings without a formal power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroof Shah and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 174 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Shah and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 498 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Shah And Another vs The State1996 MLD 498 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 184 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Maj.-Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Mst. Kanwal Rabbani and another1996 P Cr. L J 2030 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Masih vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-17
  Prohibition Order 1979fake purchasersearch warranthouse searchSection 342 CrPCsale of intoxicantsnon-Muslim exemptionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the conviction and three-year sentence of the appellant under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Jhang. The prosecution alleged that the appellant sold foreign wine to a fake purchaser using a marked Rs. 1,000 note and that further bottles were recovered from his house. The core legal questions involved whether a charge of selling intoxicants under Article 3(c) can stand without producing the purchaser or currency note, the impact of failing to comply with Article 22 search warrant requirements before searching a residential house, and the validity of a conviction where material evidence was omitted during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

  The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that to prove the sale of intoxicants under Article 3(c), the prosecution must produce the purchaser, the currency used, and the purchased intoxicant. It ruled that compliance with Article 22 of the Prohibition Order is a mandatory prerequisite for house searches to protect domestic privacy, preceding the application of Section 103 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination is not a mere formality, and failing to put crucial incriminating circumstances to the accused renders any conviction based on them illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution required to produce the fake purchaser and the currency note used in a trap operation to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicants under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order 1979?
  • Is compliance with Article 22 of the Prohibition Order 1979 mandatory before conducting a house search for intoxicants?
  • Does the failure to put key pieces of incriminating evidence to the accused during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. render the subsequent conviction illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1226 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1461 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jani and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 656 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Inder Lal and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 464 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 457 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad And Another vs The State1996 MLD 457 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Inder Lal And Another vs The State1996 MLD 464 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Sultan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 853 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1783 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1856 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs The State1996 PLD Federal Shariat Court 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1217 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Kaka vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1429 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 648 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din Alias Chiraghoo vs The State1996 MLD 769 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
• Brigade Commander Headquarters Field Command NLC, Karachi vs The State1996 MLD 469 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 418 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Badshah Khan and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 428 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Badshah Khan And Another vs The State1996 MLD 428 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ayoob and 8 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 642 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1687 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas And Another vs The State1996 MLD 782 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali And Another vs The State1996 MLD 766 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ansar vs The State1996 MLD 444 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 639 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1996 MLD 640 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abid Javed alias Mithu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1161 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-01-31
  zina-bil-jabrbenefit of doubthostile witnessmedical jurisprudencesemen groupingcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and stripes. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the child victim, declared a competent witness, completely exonerated the accused at trial, and critical corroborative evidence was lacking. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a shadow of doubt due to the victim's hostile testimony absolving the appellant, inadmissible hearsay evidence forming the basis of the complainants' arrival at the scene, and inconclusive medical and forensic evidence. The court laid down the principle that when a victim completely exonerates the accused and material gaps exist in the prosecution's corroborative evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal. Furthermore, the court reiterated the imperative requirement for investigating and medical officers to obtain and match the accused's semen sample with vaginal swabs for serological comparison.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr can be sustained when the child victim examined as a court witness completely exonerates the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of vaginal swabs containing semen when the prosecution fails to obtain and match the semen of the accused for serological comparison?
  • Does the rule of benefit of the doubt apply when material prosecution witnesses rely on inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1712 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs The State1996 MLD 484 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 629 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Yousuf and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1739 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The StateK.LR. 1997 Sharia Cases 285 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad ShafiK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 231 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faqir Muhammad And Another1995 MLD 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
• Tauheed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 653 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1712 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sohail Sardar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 648 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1749 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-27
  criminal revisionissuance of processColumn No. 2application of mindtrial court discretionpolice reportZina Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by a trial court issuing process against three petitioners who were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan submitted by the police. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in summoning the petitioners to face trial without explicitly applying its mind to the police report and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's order was passed without due application of mind, as it failed to consider that the police had found no evidence to implicate the petitioners and had placed them in Column No. 2. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that while the police's opinion is not binding on the trial court, the court must, before issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2, examine the available material and record a prima facie conclusion regarding their involvement. The trial court was granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after proper consideration of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the trial court?
  • What is the legal requirement for a trial court before issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan?
  • Can a trial court issue process against an accused without applying its mind to the material available in the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 301 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Salim Akhtar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 233 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1788 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Alias Bhola vs The State1995 MLD 946 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Rozal vs The State1995 MLD 942 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →