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.

• Riaz Ahmad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ishhaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 61 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Punhal And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1642 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Pomi vs The State1995 MLD 927 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Pervez Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 140 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Nusratullah and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Nusratullah And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Khan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1084 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1745 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain And 4 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1686 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 2011 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Case 237 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Alias Chheela And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 314 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Khan vs Muhammad Arshad And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 249 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 658 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah vs The State1995 MLD 937 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1999 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1999 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kaleem vs The State1995 MLD 1152 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israeel Alias Nikku vs The State1995 MLD 1988 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1736 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 449 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 328 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 287 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 338 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 950 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida vs The State1995 MLD 1517 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Khatoon and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1048 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fauzia vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 453 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 646 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1995 MLD 1097 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1897 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 166 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid Alias Khala vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 322 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Jamroz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 470 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Israr Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 163 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 231 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Lal Jan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 951 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mzjhammad vs The State1995 MLD 1700 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghias Ahmad alias Shado and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 650 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Eiden and 5 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1885 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1650 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1650 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Dawa Khan vs The State1995 MLD 940 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Chiragh And Another Versus The State Chiragh And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 310 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1986 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Alias Billa vs The State1995 MLD 1114 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1134 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1996 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-12
  narcotics smugglingconfession of co-accusedcircumstantial evidenceTazirProhibition OrderQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of twenty kilograms of heroin concealed in furniture brought to a railway parcel office by a minor co-accused. The core legal question was whether the judicial confessional statement of an acquitted co-accused implicating the appellant could be used as evidence against the appellant, and whether the conviction could be sustained thereon. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, holding that while a co-accused's confession must be treated with caution, an inculpatory judicial confession corroborated by circumstantial evidence can be lawfully taken into consideration against another person under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The key principle laid down is that a confession by a co-accused, when corroborated by independent facts and circumstances pointing irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, constitutes valid circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in Tazir.

  Questions settled

  • Can the judicial confession of a co-accused be used as circumstantial evidence against an accused person under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether a conviction for transporting narcotics under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 can be sustained solely on the basis of a corroborated confessional statement of a co-accused?
  • Does Islamic Criminal Law permit the acceptance of a co-accused's confession as circumstantial evidence for conviction and Tazir?
  Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Rahman vs The State1995 MLD 1073 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Atiq Ur Rahman vs The State1995 MLD 1073 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 932 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 215 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 142 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26
  narcotics recoverysearch proceedingsmandatory provisionspossessioncriminal appealacquittalprohibition order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of three appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an alleged recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the search proceedings and the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the vehicle as case property, which undermined the prosecution's narrative and supported the defence's claim that the police raided the appellants' residence rather than a public location. Crucially, the Court found that the complainant failed to associate two respectable persons from the locality during the search, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This omission rendered the search proceedings invalid. Furthermore, the Court noted that one appellant was not present at the scene, precluding a finding of possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting all appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that non-compliance with mandatory search procedures vitiates the recovery process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate two respectable persons from the locality during a search violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the vehicle allegedly used for transporting narcotics as case property during a trial?
  • Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the accused was present at the scene of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1272 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1995 MLD 954 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1025 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 949 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1102 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1658 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalil and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1894 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Zulqarnain vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 34 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-03-12Read full judgment →
• Wasal Khan And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 37 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-03-09
  heroin recoverysafe custody of sampleschemical examinersuppression of evidencebenefit of doubtprohibition ordercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for allegedly transporting heroin powder. The core legal question revolves around whether the unexplained delay in sending the recovery samples to the Chemical Examiner and the failure to prove safe custody of the seized narcotics create sufficient doubt in the prosecution case. The Federal Shariat Court held that withholding crucial evidence regarding the safe custody of samples in the Malkhana and an unplausibly long delay of over five weeks in transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that the State must produce all available evidence to prove safe custody of recovered contraband, and any failure to do so or unexplained delay in forensic analysis raises a strong presumption of doubt in favor of the accused, entitling them to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovery samples to the Chemical Examiner create doubt in a narcotics case?
  • What is the legal effect of the State's failure to prove safe custody of seized contraband in the Malkhana?
  • Whether the withholding of available prosecution evidence raises a presumption against the truthfulness of the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when serious doubt is cast on the integrity of the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Tor Jan And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 48 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Jamshed Ali And 2 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 11 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-28
  criminal appealconfessional statementpolice custodyheroin recoverysearch of vehicleprohibition orderacquittal set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent Jamshed Ali by the Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and legality of a judicial confessional statement made by the accused after six days in police custody, minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, and whether the search of a motor vehicle requires strict compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court misread the evidence and improperly discarded the confessional statement which was recorded after fulfilling all legal formalities, and clarified that section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not apply to the search of a vehicle. The court consequently set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with whipping and fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement recorded after six days of police custody loses its efficacy without proof of coercion?
  • Does the search of a motor vehicle attract the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can minor discrepancies regarding the sourcing of weights and balances vitiate a narcotics recovery case?
  • Whether the transport of contraband in a vehicle driven by the accused sufficiently proves guilt under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar AndAnother vs Gulab Hussain Alias Ghulam Hussain And 3 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs The State1994 MLD 1035 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Maskin Shah and anothers vs The State and 2 others1994 MLD 190 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Masih vs The State1994 MLD 1043 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Qasim Jan vs Hamesh Gul And 3 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 15 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad alias Haji and another vs The State1994 MLD 1036 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Ijaz Hussain Shah And 2 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 32 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 43 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1994 MLD 1045 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Iqbal vs The State1994 MLD 1046 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 2 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Kenneth and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 129 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Jamil And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 50 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 47) · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Ayoob vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Dilbar And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 24 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The StateK.L.K. 1994 Shariat Cases 40 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad alias Bhutto and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2503 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 113 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1715 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Walayat Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 778 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rahib and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 248 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam1993 P Cr. L J 2287 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-16
  narcoticschain of custodychemical examiner reportacquittalburden of proofheroin recoverytest purchase
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Aslam, by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, regarding charges under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was apprehended with one kilogram of heroin following a test purchase operation. The core legal question before the Federal Shariat Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotic sample to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding who transported the sample to the Chemical Examiner's office. Consequently, the Court could not connect the chemical report to the heroin allegedly recovered from the respondent. The Court affirmed the acquittal, establishing the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every link in the chain of custody. Failure to demonstrate that the sample examined was the same sample recovered from the accused creates a fatal gap in the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal as the guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove who transported a narcotic sample to the Chemical Examiner's office constitute a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible if the prosecution cannot connect the sample analyzed to the specific recovery made from the accused?
  • What is the effect of a missing link in the chain of custody on the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hafeez and another1993 P Cr. L J 1890 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Dur Muhammad1993 P Cr. L J 1857 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2267 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Subbago vs Tiie State1993 P Cr. L J 1934 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Tahir Bashir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 119 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1867 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Shireen Dil Khan Niazi and 3 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence1993 MLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2538 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Sarja vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 156 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-28
  rapeZinabenefit of doubtdelayed FIRsolitary witnesscriminal appealHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged rape of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the evidence presented. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution’s case relied primarily on the solitary testimony of the complainant, which lacked corroboration regarding the actual commission of the offence. The Court noted a significant 54-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report, despite the complainant’s husband having returned home, and found no reasonable excuse for such delay. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the possibility of enmity between the parties. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused in a Zina case?
  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained solely on the testimony of the complainant when there is no other ocular evidence of the offence?
  • Is the existence of prior enmity between the complainant and the accused a relevant factor in evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Salehon vs Yaqub and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2380 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din Roshan vs The State1993 CLC 389 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →