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.

• 1993 PLD 251993 PLD 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 211993 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 201993 PLD 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 171993 PLD 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 121993 PLD 12 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 11993 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal, Chairman, Tehrik Inqilab, Islam, Rawalpindi Versus Secretary, M/O Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1992 PLD 530 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
• CH. Irshad Ahmad Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad1992 PLD 527 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ul-Wahab Alkheri Versus Federation of Pakistan1992 PLD 484 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Qureshy Versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1992 PLD 445 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Sultana Versus Riaz Ahmad1992 PLD 427 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Baig Mirza Versus Government of Pakistan1992 PLD 412 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-23Read full judgment →
• The Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) Versus The Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)1992 PLD 398 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
• M. Naeem Virk Versus Government of Pakistan1992 PLD 385 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Ali Shah Versus The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad1992 PLD 361 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan1992 PLD 286 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi Versus Government of Punjab1992 PLD 282 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Amin Jan Naeem Versus Federation of Pakistan1992 PLD 252 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-12Read full judgment →
• DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal Versus Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1992 PLD 195 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mufti Iftikharuddin Versus Federal Government1992 PLD 188 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal Versus Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1992 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Versus Government of Punjab1991 PLD 80 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Versus The State1991 PLD 71 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Arif Nawaz Khan Versus The State1991 PLD 53 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Versus The State1991 PLD 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal, Chairman, Tehrik-E-Inqalab Islam, Rawalpindi Versus Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1991 PLD 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• The N: W.F.P. Provincial Assembly (Powers, Immunities and Privilecfs) Act, 1988 Versus The N: W.F.P. Provincial Assembly (Powers, Immunities and Privilecfs) Act, 19881991 PLD 283 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood Versus The State1991 PLD 268 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ul-Wahab Alkhairi Versus Federation of Pakistan1991 PLD 236 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-08Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Versus The State1991 PLD 186 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Haider Hussain Versus Government of Pakistan1991 PLD 139 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Ghulam Abbas1991 PLD 135 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Versus Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs1991 PLD 10 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Zeb-Ul-Haram Versus The State1991 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 891988 PLD 89 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 781988 PLD 78 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 421988 PLD 42 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 381988 PLD 38 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 351988 PLD 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 261988 PLD 26 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 221988 PLD 22 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 151988 PLD 15 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 111988 PLD 11 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1001988 PLD 100 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 11988 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus The State1984 PLD 93 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus This State1984 PLD 81 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Obaidur Rehman Versus The State1984 PLD 72 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Versus The State1984 PLD 40 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mumammad Abbas Versus The State1984 PLD 3 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Versus The State1984 PLD 23 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Din alias Pindo and Another Versus The State1981 PLD 291 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus The State1981 PLD 290 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Versus The State1981 PLD 243 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ameen Etc. Versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Others1981 PLD 23 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
• Syeda Fouzia Jalaal Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad and 14 others2025 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sofia Aslam daughter of Muhammad Aslam, Caste Rajput, Resident of Waris Colony, Street No.3, Mehboob Town, Okara vs The State & other2025 F.S.C 1 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan son of Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State2025 F.S.C 2 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-15
  Qazf OrdinanceLiandissolution of marriagedivorce deedpaternity disputecriminal revisionframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application for framing an amended charge under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings under 'Lian' via Section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance are maintainable when the marital tie no longer subsists, and whether Section 14 can form the basis for framing a criminal charge. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 14 applies only when a subsisting marriage exists between the parties, and because the petitioner had already divorced the respondent prior to the proceedings, 'Lian' was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court held that Section 14 is merely procedural and cannot form the basis for framing a penal charge. The key principles laid down are that a written divorce deed effective from its execution terminates the marital status precluding subsequent 'Lian' proceedings, and that charges must be framed under penal provisions rather than procedural sections.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings of 'Lian' under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 maintainable when the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
  • Can Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 form the basis for framing a criminal charge against an accused?
  • When does a written divorce deed pronounced by a husband become effective in Islamic law and Pakistani jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Dar-ul-Qaza, Swat vs Shehbaz son of Muhammad Arif and others2024 F.S.C 20, 2025 MLD 256, 2025 PLJ FSC 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-11-20
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonycontradictions in evidenceidentification of accuseddouble presumption of innocencere-appraisal of evidenceanti-terrorism trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges relating to a terrorist attack on a police vehicle resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of major contradictions in witness statements regarding the identification of the accused, the role of abscondence, and the strict parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's findings of acquittal were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, major contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and the lack of reliable identification of the accused. The court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should be extremely slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal based on the re-appraisal of evidence when the trial court's findings are plausible and supported by the record?
  • Does the mere abscondence of an accused persons for a prolonged period conclusively establish their guilt in the absence of solid substantive evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of high probabilities and suspicion when direct ocular testimony suffers from glaring contradictions regarding the identity of the perpetrators?
  • What is the scope and standard of review for an appellate court hearing an appeal against an acquittal where a double presumption of innocence is attached to the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali Khan vs The State, Haji Dost Muhammad2024 F.S.C 16, 2025 YLR 49 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-10-23
  waj-takkarabscondenceOffence of Zinacriminal appealsecondary evidenceSection 512 Cr.P.C.acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for abduction and illicit intercourse under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions concern the reliability of "waj-takkar" (chance encounter) evidence, the sufficiency of proof regarding the appellant's alleged abscondence, and whether the prosecution can rely on secondary evidence when substantive evidence—previously preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—was available but not transposed. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It found the "waj-takkar" testimony unnatural and unsupported by plausible reasons for the witness's presence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that abscondence was not proven due to the absence of conclusive warrants or proclamations on the record. The Court established the principle that "waj-takkar" is weak evidence requiring strict scrutiny, and the prosecution is bound to utilize the best available evidence, specifically evidence preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rather than introducing secondary evidence in a casual manner. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'waj-takkar' (chance encounter) evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without plausible corroboration?
  • Can the prosecution rely on secondary evidence when substantive evidence preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
  • What constitutes conclusive proof of abscondence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to produce warrants and proclamations render the claim of abscondence unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Sholo alias Rasool Bux vs The State2024 YLR 328 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-05-14
  death sentencebenefit of doubtabscondencedelayed FIRdishonest improvementocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, given an inordinate delay of fourteen hours in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, material contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence, and the non-examination of a key eye-witness. The Federal Shariat Court, in a majority decision, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The majority held that unexplained delays in FIR registration and witness statements, combined with dishonest improvements by witnesses to match medical evidence, cast serious doubt on the prosecution's veracity. Furthermore, the court ruled that abscondence is merely a weak corroborative circumstance and cannot sustain a conviction when primary ocular evidence is discredited. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report and recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence if the primary ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of a prosecution witness making dishonest improvements during trial to align their testimony with medical evidence?
  • Whether an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can be drawn when the prosecution fails to examine a material eye-witness without justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 499, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 632 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-11-16
  dacoity with murderharaabahsentencing reasoningcriminal appealremandSection 367(5) CrPCSection 396 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a conviction for dacoity with murder. The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, despite the involvement of only three accused persons, whereas the definition of dacoity under Section 391 requires five or more persons. Furthermore, the trial court failed to provide mandatory reasons for declining to impose the death penalty, violating Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly given the charges under the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its application of the penal provisions and its failure to adhere to procedural sentencing requirements. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was legally flawed due to the misapplication of the dacoity statute and the omission of mandatory sentencing reasoning. Consequently, the court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing that trial courts must strictly comply with statutory sentencing obligations and provide reasoned justifications when departing from capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of dacoity under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 require the involvement of at least five persons?
  • Is a trial court legally obligated to state reasons in its judgment when it chooses not to impose the death penalty for an offence punishable by death?
  • Can a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be sustained when only three persons are involved in the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs The State and 2 others2024 MLD 1185 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-02-29
  QazfZina-bil-Jabrbenefit of doubtmaliceDNA reportburden of proofacquittalhearsay evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Jampur-I dated October 29, 2022, whereby respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charge of 'Qazf' under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979. The appellant filed a private complaint alleging that the respondents falsely accused him and his brother of 'zina' in a previous crime report, which resulted in negative DNA reports and their acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court examined the statutory ingredients of 'Qazf', the second exception relating to accusations preferred in good faith to an authorized person, and the strict requirements of proof including direct evidence and tazkiyah al-shuhood. The Court held that the mere failure of a complainant to prove an allegation of 'zina' or 'zina-bil-jabr' does not automatically render them liable for 'Qazf' unless mala fide intent and a false accusation are affirmatively proved. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the date, time, and place of the occurrence, and the initial report was made to a police officer in the absence of the appellant, rendering the testimony hearsay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere failure of a complainant to prove an accusation of zina or zina-bil-jabr in court automatically render the complainant liable for the offence of Qazf?
  • Can a negative DNA report serve as primary evidence to establish the offence of Qazf without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Is an imputation of zina made before an authorized person or police officer in good faith protected under the exceptions to Section 3 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979?
  • What is the effect of an omission to disclose the date, time, and place of occurrence in the depositions of prosecution witnesses in a Qazf trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Naheeda Bashir vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 6 others2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ms. Naheeda Bashir and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others2024 F.S.C 14 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Molvi Liaqat Ali vs Mohammad Ishaque and others2024 F.S.C 3, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 29 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-03-14
  Qazfcriminal revisionpreliminary inquiryfair trialdue processburden of proofremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, which dismissed a direct complaint of Qazf. The petitioner alleged that the respondents publicly leveled false accusations of Zina against him, causing defamation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing hearsay evidence and lack of immediate proof. The Federal Shariat Court examined whether the trial court correctly assessed the complaint at the preliminary stage. The Court held that the burden of proof at the preliminary inquiry stage is significantly lighter than at a full trial, and a court should not convert a preliminary inquiry into a full-fledged trial. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial and due process, guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution, requires that a complainant be given a full opportunity of hearing and the chance to produce evidence. Finding that the trial court acted in haste without providing such an opportunity, the Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the burden of proof at the preliminary inquiry stage of a criminal complaint the same as the burden of proof required at a full trial?
  • Does the dismissal of a criminal complaint without providing the complainant an opportunity of hearing violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a trial court convert a preliminary inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a full-fledged trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Khayal Bacha vs Ijaz Hussain and another2024 YLR 2147 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-06-12
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtlast seen evidencecall data recordidentification paradeunauthorized investigationcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased and related offences, including robbery and arms possession. The case was an un-witnessed occurrence where the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, call data records (CDR), and alleged recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court found that the investigation was severely flawed, notably being conducted by an unauthorized officer (a Head Constable) in violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Key pieces of evidence, such as the CDR, identification parade, and recovery memos, were found to be inadmissible or unreliable due to legal infirmities, lack of corroboration, and tampering. Emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete or broken?
  • Is a Call Data Record (CDR) sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of call transcripts or end-to-end audio recordings?
  • Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector in a murder case, without authorization, vitiate the investigation?
  • Can the testimony of a witness who was not present at the scene and relies on information from others be admitted as evidence?
  • Is the 'last seen' circumstance alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Khayal Bacha son of Habib vs Ijaz Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain and another2024 F.S.C 18 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Juman, Son Of Aari, Adult, Muslim, By Caste Sheedi, Resident Of Kario2024 F.S.C 22, 2025 MLD 314 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-11-27
  prohibition enforcementHadd orderchain of custodychemical examiner reportrecovery proceedingsbenefit of doubtcriminal revisionmandatory association of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 54 pints of wine. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence regarding the chain of custody of the recovered property, the validity of the chemical examiner's report based on a single sample, and the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses as required by law. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the sample, rendering the chemical report unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the incident's circumstances and the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the chemical examiner's report reliable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transmission of the sample?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses in recovery proceedings as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the lack of enmity between the police and the accused automatically validate the prosecution's case despite material contradictions in evidence?
  • Is a single pint of wine a representative sample for 54 recovered bottles to prove the nature of the substance in all of them?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ali Khan son of Hakeem Dad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Islamabad2024 F.S.C 6, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others2024 F.S.C 8 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Irfan Iqbal son of Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal, presently confined at Central Prison Rawalpindi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad_2024 F.S.C 5, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Son Of Dilawar and others vs The State and others2024 F.S.C 10 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Nadir Khan, Managing Director/Chief Executive Warrantor, M/s PharmaWise Labs (Pvt) Limited 25-M.Q.A. Industrial Estate, Lahore and others vs The State and others2024 F.S.C 2, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak alias Bagro and another vs The State and another2024 YLR 1713 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-11-30
  benefit of doubtidentification paradedishonest improvementcriminal appealmurder convictionprosecution evidencewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the identification parade, the consistency of prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses to align with medical evidence, failure of witnesses to identify the appellant in court, and procedural irregularities in the investigation and identification parade. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the trial court ignored glaring infirmities and misread the evidence. The key principle laid down is that when prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements to their statements, their testimony loses credibility. Furthermore, the court reiterated that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness's dishonest improvement to align their statement with medical evidence render their entire testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused during the trial?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be upheld if material pieces of evidence are not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• 1. Khadim Hussain Son Of Mohabat Khan and others vs The State2024 F.S.C 12, 2024 YLR 2247 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-06-13
  Harrabahbenefit of doubtretracted confessioncriminal appealchain of custodyrecovery evidencejudicial confessionunexplained delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for offenses under Section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 412 and 202 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the impact of unexplained delays in recording witness statements, and the validity of alleged recoveries of crime weapons and stolen property. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the confessions involuntary and procedurally flawed, the recovery evidence unreliable due to broken chain of custody and lack of independent witnesses, and the witness statements suspect due to inordinate, unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on retracted judicial confessions that fail to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody for recovered crime weapons and evidence to ensure their admissibility and reliability?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Qudoos vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law & Justice, Islamabad and others2023 F.S.C 5, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain vs The State2023 F.S.C 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-11-16
  dacoity with murdercriminal appealremand of casedeath sentence reasonsOffences against Property Ordinanceidentification paradeHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a single judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 396/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for dacoity with murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the offence of dacoity under Section 396 can be sustained when only three accused persons are involved, and whether the trial court erred in failing to provide reasons for not awarding the death sentence under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that since Section 396 requires five or more persons for dacoity, a conviction thereunder for three persons was erroneous, and that the trial court failed to record reasons for withholding the death sentence as mandated by law. Consequently, the court accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for rewriting the judgment in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that a trial court convicting an accused of an offence punishable with death must explicitly state its reasons for awarding a lesser sentence as mandated by Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the statutory threshold of five persons must be met to constitute dacoity under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code for dacoity with murder be sustained when fewer than five persons are involved?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to state reasons in its judgment when it imposes a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
  • What is the proper course of action for an appellate court when a trial court fails to record mandatory reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • How does Section 20 of The Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply when haraabah is not liable to hadd punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others vs Province of Punjab2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 283 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ur Rehman and 4 others vs The State and others2023 YLR 336 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-04-29
  dacoity with murdercircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentrecovery of looted propertyforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and revision application arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dir Lower, convicting five appellants for dacoity with murder (Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) and mischief (Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of looted money, weapons, and forensic matching of crime empties, despite the absence of eyewitnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the robbed amount and crime weapons matching the empties found at the scene, which proved the appellants' involvement in the pre-planned dacoity and murder. The Court affirmed the death sentences for the two appellants whose weapons were linked to the crime and upheld the life imprisonment for the remaining three, noting their lack of active participation in the killing. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence, when well-knitted and excluding all hypotheses of innocence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for heinous crimes like dacoity with murder.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for dacoity with murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure to record a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of the accused render it inadmissible?
  • Are procedural irregularities in the investigation curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they do not prejudice the accused?
  • Does the recovery of looted property and crime weapons from the accused, following their disclosure, constitute admissible evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Noor Aisha widow of late Ghulam Qadir Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary2023 F.S.C 9, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 22, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 808 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-09-12
  Shariat PetitionPensionary benefitsTarkaInheritanceRelief in personamJurisdiction of Federal Shariat CourtRepugnancy to Injunctions of Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This Shariat Petition was filed by the mother of a deceased civil servant, seeking a share of his pensionary funds, asserting that such funds constitute Tarka (inheritance) under Islamic law. The core legal question was whether pensionary benefits qualify as Tarka and whether the Federal Shariat Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant relief in personam in such disputes. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that pensionary benefits do not fall within the definition of Tarka and are instead governed by specific departmental pensionary rules. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an employer retains the liberty to define "family" for the purpose of entitlement to such benefits. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a Shariat Petition is only maintainable under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if it challenges a specific law or rule as repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. As the petitioners failed to identify any such repugnant law and sought relief in personam, the petition was found non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Do pensionary benefits constitute 'Tarka' (inheritance) under Islamic law?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to grant relief in personam in pension disputes?
  • What is the requirement for maintaining a Shariat Petition under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Najaat Welfare Foundation through General Secretary vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Central Secretariat, Shaharah-e-Dastoor, Islamabad and 4 others2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 291, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 673 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shehzad vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and another2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 286 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-02-07
  KhulaFamily Courts ActFederal Shariat Courtdissolution of marriageconsent of husbandrepugnant to injunctions of Islamreconciliationirrevocable divorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This Shariat Petition filed before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the constitutionality and validity of Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, on the ground that the grant of Khula by a court without the husband's consent is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The core legal question was whether a family court can decree a dissolution of marriage through Khula without the husband's consent when reconciliation efforts fail. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that courts of competent jurisdiction are empowered to dissolve marriages through Khula upon failure of reconciliation, even without the husband's consent. The court reaffirmed its earlier Full Bench ruling in Saleem Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2014 FSC 43), clarifying the legal nature and effect of Khula under Islamic law, including its operation as a single irrevocable divorce and the distinction between Talaq and Khula.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 violate the injunctions of Islam by permitting Khula without the husband's consent?
  • Can a court of competent jurisdiction decree Khula when reconciliation efforts fail and the husband does not agree to the divorce?
  • What is the legal effect of Khula under Islamic law regarding its operation as an irrevocable divorce and the requirement of Halala?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1153 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-12-19
  criminal revisionprohibition enforcement of haddrecovery proceedingssafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtsection 103 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of wine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the recovery proceedings and the chemical analysis of the seized contraband. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property, noting significant delays in sending the sample for analysis and the failure to examine the officials responsible for its custody. Furthermore, the Court found that the failure to associate independent witnesses as required by law, coupled with material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses and the omission to put the chemical examiner's report to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, such as Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiates the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property to the chemical examiner?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible as evidence against an accused if it was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of enmity between the police and the accused automatically validate the prosecution's evidence despite material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and others2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 301 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-05-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Saif-ur-Rahman Shaheen vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan through Attorney General of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2023 F.S.C 3, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 9, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 478 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• Faheem vs The State2023 PCRLJ 757, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 660 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-02-03
  criminal revisionprohibition lawbenefit of doubtsafe custody of samplesSection 342 statementrecovery proceedingsindependent witnesseschemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, which maintained the petitioner's conviction under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of raw wine. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the mandatory requirement of independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the integrity of the chemical examination process, and the procedural necessity of putting incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the recovered samples, and that the police witnesses provided contradictory testimony and failed to associate independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a busy area. Furthermore, the failure to put the chemical examiner's report to the accused during his Section 342 statement rendered it inadmissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the petitioner the benefit of the doubt, and ordered his acquittal, establishing that material contradictions and procedural lapses in recovery proceedings entitle an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put the chemical examiner's report to an accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the report inadmissible?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a busy area a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical laboratory entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs Pir Qamar Zaman and 3 others2023 YLR 890 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-12-08
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcontradictory medical evidencedouble presumption of innocencehudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges under Section 17(3) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by extending them the benefit of doubt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence, and the failure to establish specific roles or recover incriminating evidence from the respondents. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence which can only be interfered with if the judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from complete misreading of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained inordinate delays in reporting crimes and recording witness statements cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned decision is capricious or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements creates serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • What is the standard of proof and weight attached to a judgment of acquittal when challenged in an appellate court?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of perversity, arbitrariness, or misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Azhar vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Law, Parliamentary Affairs2023 PLD Federal Shariat Court 265 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Azhar vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Law, Parliamentary AffairsPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 689 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Asghar and another vs The State and others2023 YLR 2015 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Moeen son of Hazrat Yousaf, resident of Kago Cham Barikot P/S2023 F.S.C 7, 2024 YLR 1090 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-12-07
  transposed statementsabsconding accusedrecord of evidence in absence of accusedattempted murderinjuriesmedical evidenceappellate decisioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge MCTC, Dir Upper, convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 450, 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following a trial after 21 years of abscondence. The core legal questions involved the legality of relying on transposed statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in the absence of the absconding accused, and whether such evidence is admissible under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that statements recorded in the trial of co-accused can be validly transposed and relied upon in a subsequent trial of an arrested absconder under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provided the statutory preconditions regarding the opportunity to cross-examine are met. The court laid down that the sole testimony of an injured victim, when trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction, and that transposed statements preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in the trial of co-accused be transposed and used as evidence against an absconding accused upon his subsequent arrest under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for the admissibility of a transposed statement in a subsequent trial?
  • Is the sole testimony of an injured victim, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, sufficient to maintain a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Do procedural irregularities in preparing a medico-legal certificate vitiate the trial or render the medical report inadmissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan and 7 others2022 PLD Federal Shariat Court 52 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sadam Hussain and another vs The State2022 YLR 1589 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-03-28
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtprohibition lawrecovery evidencechain of custodyprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicants for the possession of liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the recovery, the sealing of evidence, the chain of custody, and the timeline of the incident. Furthermore, the failure to examine key witnesses and the unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner created substantial doubt. The Court held that when prosecution evidence is unreliable and contains dishonest improvements, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the applicants, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their testimony?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when there are material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Najaat Welfare Foundation, P-756-a, Kot Khan Muhammad, Station2022 F.S.C 39 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Kewal vs The State2022 YLR 1252 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-04
  dacoitycriminal appealnon-prosecutioninherent jurisdictionfugitive from lawappreciation of evidenceacquittalSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for dacoity under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, previously convicted by the trial court, challenged the judgment after his initial appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution during his period as a fugitive. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of an appeal filed after the dismissal of a prior appeal for non-prosecution and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that while a fugitive from law loses the right of audience, once the convict is recaptured or surrenders, the Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall an order of dismissal and resurrect the appeal. On merits, the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, delayed reporting, and unreliable witness testimony, leading to an acquittal. The Court emphasized that when evidence is misread and misappreciated, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, the conviction cannot be sustained, especially when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court recall an order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution if the appellant was a fugitive at the time of dismissal but has since been arrested?
  • Does the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the resurrection of an appeal dismissed for non-appearance?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions and the FIR is delayed without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali and others vs The State2022 YLR 1097 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-11
  murderbenefit of the doubtretracted confessiondelayed FIRmedical and ocular conflictdishonest improvementsidentification paradecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the solitary injured eye-witness, unexplained inordinate delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, and conflicts between medical and ocular evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring material contradictions, dishonest improvements by witnesses, non-compliance with mandatory rules for recording confessional statements, and the absence of an identification parade where the accused were initially unknown. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants of all charges by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused entitles them to an acquittal as a matter of right, and retracted confessions or improved testimonies cannot sustain a conviction when shrouded in mystery and manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements that lack material particulars and fail to adhere to statutory formalities under sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses to bring their testimonies in line with the medical evidence?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused were initially unknown to the eye-witness and the complainant at the time of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Anwar Khan, etc. vs Govt. of the Punjab through secretary Ministry of LawPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1017 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Khuda Bux and 9 others2022 YLR 1519 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-12-24
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmedical evidenceocular accountmaterial contradictionsabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a case involving abduction and murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, thereby warranting interference with the trial court's acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The court held that an accused, once acquitted, earns a "double presumption of innocence," which requires the prosecution to meet a heavy burden to rebut. Interference with an acquittal is only permissible if the judgment is arbitrary, capricious, or based on a complete misreading of evidence. The court found the prosecution's case fatally flawed due to an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, which provided ample opportunity for consultation and fabrication. Furthermore, significant material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, along with dishonest improvements by witnesses, rendered the prosecution's version highly doubtful. Consequently, the court affirmed that the trial court correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal standard for interfering with an acquittal judgment in a criminal appeal?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR render the prosecution's case fatal?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence on the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's findings are not arbitrary or capricious?
  Read full judgment →